S. HRG. 115–1 

HEARING ON NOMINATION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL SCOTT PRUITT TO BE ADMINISTRATOR 

OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JANUARY 18, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 
HEARING ON NOMINATION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL SCOTT PRUITT TO BE 

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing 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

24–034 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 115–1 

HEARING ON NOMINATION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL SCOTT PRUITT TO BE ADMINISTRATOR 

OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JANUARY 18, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

KAMALA HARRIS, California 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

GABRIELLE BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JANUARY 18, 2017 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 1 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 4 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 10 

Lankford, Hon. James, U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma ..................... 13 

WITNESS 

Pruitt, Hon. Scott, Attorney General, State of Oklahoma, nominated to be 

Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .................................... 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Booker .......................................................................................... 740 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 751 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 776 

Response to an additional question from Senator Duckworth ...................... 827 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Gillibrand ..................................................................................... 828 

Senator Markey ......................................................................................... 843 

Senator Merkley ........................................................................................ 879 

Senator Sanders ........................................................................................ 897 

Senator Sullivan ........................................................................................ 934 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 936 

List of cases Mr. Pruitt joined, initiated, and amicus ................................... 982 

Mr. Pruitt’s testimony: 

Before the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform of the House 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, June 28, 2012 ... 994 

Before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements, July 

31, 2013 .................................................................................................. 1018 

Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on 

Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, May 5, 2015 ........................................ 1021 

Before a Joint Hearing of the Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works and House Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure ......................................................................................... 1026 

Article: The Next Supreme Court Justice, by Scott Pruitt ........................... 1029 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Letters: 

To Scott Pruitt from Senator Whitehouse et al., December 27, 2016 .......... 642 

An Open Letter to President-elect Trump and the 115th Congress from 

Science and the Public Interest ................................................................... 644 

To President-elect Trump and Members of Congress from Second Nature, 

January 17, 2017 .......................................................................................... 648 

To Senator Boozman from The Poultry Federation ....................................... 656 

Letters and other material in support of Scott Pruitt’s becoming EPA Administrator: .................................................................................................................

From the Cornwall Alliance, January 5, 2017 ............................................... 659 

From the American Energy Alliance et al., January 12, 2017 ..................... 665 
Page

IV 

—Continued 

From the Agricultural Retailers Association et al., January 17, 2017 ........ 667 

From the Agricultural Retailers Association, January 9, 2017 .................... 668 

From the Alabama Cattlemen’s Association et al., January 10, 2017 ......... 669 

From the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, January 17, 2017 ....... 670 

From the Office of the Attorney General, State of Alabama et al., January 

4, 2017 ............................................................................................................ 672 

From the Energy and Environment Cabinet, Commonwealth of Kentucky, 

January 17, 2017 .......................................................................................... 675 

From the National Association of Home Builders, January 12, 2017 .......... 680 

From U.S. Representative Mullin et al., January 10, 2017 .......................... 683 

From the American Farm Bureau Federation, January 4, 2017 .................. 684 

From the Specialty Equipment Market Association, January 13, 2017 ...... 686 

From The Fertilizer Institute, January 17, 2017 ........................................... 688 

From the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, January 17, 2017 ........... 690 

From the Western Energy Alliance, January 13, 2017 ................................. 692 

Other material in support of Scott Pruitt’s becoming EPA Administrator: 

Statement from the American Energy Alliance, January 12, 2017 .............. 663 

Press release from President-elect Trump, January 5, 2017 ........................ 677 

Press release from the Cornwall Alliance, January 16, 2017 ....................... 681 

Attorneys General in Support of Pruitt .......................................................... 694 

Farmers in Support of Pruitt .......................................................................... 720 
(1) 

HEARING ON NOMINATION OF ATTORNEY 

GENERAL SCOTT PRUITT TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso (Chairman of 

the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Capito, Boozman, 

Wicker, Fischer, Moran, Rounds, Ernst, Sullivan, Cardin, Sanders, 

Whitehouse, Merkley, Gillibrand, Booker, Markey, Duckworth, and 

Harris. 

Also present: Senator Lankford. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Good morning. I call this hearing to order. 

We have quite a full house today. I welcome the audience. This 

is a formal Senate hearing, and in order to allow the Committee 

to conduct its business, we will maintain decorum. That means if 

there are disorders, demonstrations by a member of the audience, 

the person causing the disruption will be escorted from the room 

by the Capitol Police. 

Since this is our first hearing of this session, I would like to welcome our new members, Senators Jerry Moran, Joni Ernst, Tammy 

Duckworth, and Kamala Harris. Thank you very much, and congratulations in joining the Committee. 

I would also like to welcome Senator Tom Carper in his new role 

as the Ranking Member of the Committee. You are here, even if 

you have a scratchy throat, 40 years from when you were Treasurer of Delaware, Member of Congress, Governor, member of the 

U.S. Senate. Have not missed a day. You are Cal Ripken, Jr., and 

the iron man. So thanks for being here. Thank you. I look forward 

to working with you. 

He deserves applause. 

With regard to procedure, we will follow the early bird rule in 

terms of the order of member questions. Members who were here 

at the start, as you all are, will be placed in the line based on your 

seniority on the Committee. Members who arrive after the hearing 

has started will be added to the line in the order they arrive. 
2 

With respect to today’s hearing, we will abide by the Committee’s 

5-minute rule. The 5 minutes includes not just the questions but 

also the nominee’s answers, so I ask our members to please leave 

enough time for the nominee to answer your question. Today we 

will have many rounds of questions as are necessary so that members’ questions are answered. 

Today’s hearing is to consider the nomination of the Attorney 

General of Oklahoma, Scott Pruitt, to be the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency. Attorney General Pruitt has 

been a distinguished public servant as well, and we will hear the 

same from his fellow Oklahomans today. He served 8 years in the 

Oklahoma State Senate before being elected Attorney General of 

Oklahoma in November 2010, where he still serves. 

There are numerous statements from his peers and the people 

that he has helped over the years that stand as a testament to his 

strong qualifications to run the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Twenty-four State attorneys general wrote to both Ranking 

Member Carper and to me stating that ‘‘As attorneys general, we 

understand the need to work collaboratively to address threats to 

our environment that cross State lines as well as the importance 

of a Federal counterpart in the EPA Administrator who possesses 

the knowledge, experience, and principles to work with our States 

to address issues affecting our environment. We believe that no one 

exemplifies these qualities more than Scott Pruitt.’’ 

Now, Attorney General Pruitt has taken on polluters, including 

the oil industry, when there was cause. Randy Ellis, an award winning investigative reporter with the Oklahoman newspaper, 

praised Pruitt for his ability to take on industry. The paper highlighted the work of Attorney General Pruitt to hold a large oil company accountable. This is what Ellis stated. He said, ‘‘Mr. Pruitt 

demonstrated that he will take on industry when they overstep 

when he sued oil companies such as BP who knowingly double 

dipped by collecting reimbursements for corrective action environmental costs for sites that they polluted.’’ 

This is why I believe President-elect Trump nominated Attorney 

General Pruitt to serve as the Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency. The EPA, under the leadership of a qualified 

and responsible Administrator, is a vital tool that must be used to 

protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the communities where our families live. It is truly a sacred trust. 

Colleagues on both sides of the aisle say that Attorney General 

Pruitt has the right experience for the position. Attorney General 

Pruitt understands the need to both protect the environment, while 

allowing our Nation’s economy to grow. The agency needs a leader 

who will follow the laws created by this Committee. 

During the last 8 years EPA Administrators created broad and 

legally questionable new regulations which have undermined the 

American people’s faith in the Agency. These regulations have done 

great damage to the livelihoods of our Nation’s hardest working 

citizens. The regulatory zeal of the last 8 years has violated a fundamental principle of environmental stewardship, which is do no 

harm. This failed environmental leadership has contributed to two 

of the worst Government-created environmental disasters in decades: the Gold King Mine spill and Flint, Michigan’s water crisis. 
3 

Those disasters hurt people, many from low income and minority 

communities who can least afford it. 

As I have discussed with Attorney General Pruitt, my home 

State of Wyoming is a leading energy producing State. We have 

abundant supplies of coal, natural gas, crude oil, and uranium. 

These industries provide thousands of good paying jobs for Wyoming communities. We are also, in my opinion, one of the most 

beautiful States in the Nation. We are home to Yellowstone and 

Grand Teton National Parks and numerous national forests and 

pristine lakes and waterways. Our wildlife population is diverse 

and abundant. We have thriving populations of grizzly bears, 

wolves, elk, and bison. People travel from around the world to come 

to Wyoming because our State’s natural resources are spectacular. 

Wyoming has managed to strike that balance between our environment and our economy, and it shows. For 8 years Wyoming has 

suffered under an EPA that didn’t believe in striking a balance. As 

EPA regulations crushed energy jobs in my State; State revenue 

fell that pays for State programs. This includes paying for our vital 

environmental programs. Clearly, a wholesale change is needed. 

Any new Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 

needs to protect the environment in a responsible way that doesn’t 

ignore the good work that States do to protect their air, land, and 

water, as well as their economies. 

At this time I would like to ask Ranking Member Senator Carper 

for an opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Barrasso follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

Today we consider the nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to 

be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Attorney General Pruitt has been a distinguished public servant, as we have 

heard from his fellow Oklahomans. 

He served 8 years in the Oklahoma State Senate before being elected Attorney 

General of Oklahoma in November 2010, where he still serves. 

There are numerous statements from his peers and the people he has helped over 

the years that stand as a testament to his strong qualifications to run the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Twenty-four State attorneys general wrote to both Senator Carper and to me, 

stating that: ‘‘As attorneys general, we understand the need to work collaboratively 

to address threats to our environment that cross State lines as well as the importance of a Federal counterpart in the EPA Administrator who possesses the knowledge, experience, and principles to work with our States to address issues affecting 

our environment. We believe that no one exemplifies these qualities more than Scott 

Pruitt.’’ 

Attorney General Pruitt has taken on polluters, including the oil industry, when 

there is cause. 

Randy Ellis, an award winning investigative reporter with The Oklahoman newspaper, praised Pruitt and his ability to take on industry; the paper highlighted the 

work of Attorney General Pruitt to hold a large oil company accountable. 

This is what Ellis stated: ‘‘Mr. Pruitt demonstrated that he will take on industry 

when they overstep when he sued oil companies such as BP who ‘knowingly doubledipped by collecting reimbursements for corrective action environmental costs for 

sites they polluted.’ ’’ 

This is why I believe President-elect Trump nominated Attorney General Pruitt 

to serve as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

The EPA, under the leadership of a qualified and responsible Administrator, is 

a vital tool that must be used to protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, 

and the communities where our families live. 

It’s truly a sacred trust. 
4 

Colleagues on both sides of the aisle say that Attorney General Pruitt has the 

right experience for the position. 

Attorney General Pruitt understands the need to both protect the environment 

while allowing our Nation’s economy to grow. 

The agency needs a leader who will follow the laws created by this Committee. 

During the last 8 years EPA Administrators created broad and legally questionable new regulations which have undermined the American people’s faith in the 

agency. These regulations have done great damage to the livelihoods of our Nation’s 

hardest working citizens. 

The regulatory zeal of the last 8 years has violated a fundamental principle of environmental stewardship—which is do no harm. 

This failed environmental leadership has contributed to two of the worst Government created environmental disasters in decades—the Gold King Mine spill and 

Flint, Michigan’s water crisis. 

Those disasters hurt the people, many from low income and minority communities, who can least afford it. 

So I’ve discussed with Attorney General Pruitt, my home State of Wyoming is a 

leading energy producing State. We have abundant supplies of coal, natural gas, 

crude oil, and uranium. These industries provide thousands of good paying jobs for 

Wyoming communities. 

We are also, in my opinion, one of the most beautiful States in the Nation. We 

are home to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, and numerous national 

forests and pristine lakes and waterways. 

Our wildlife population is diverse and abundant. We have thriving populations of 

grizzly bears, wolves, elk, and bison. 

People travel from around the world to come to Wyoming because our State’s natural resources are spectacular. 

Wyoming has managed to strike that balance between our environment and our 

economy, and it shows. 

For 8 years Wyoming has suffered under an EPA that didn’t believe in striking 

a balance. As EPA regulations crushed energy jobs in my State, State revenue fell 

that pays for State programs. This includes paying for our vital environmental programs. 

Clearly a wholesale change is needed. Any new Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency needs to protect the environment in a responsible way 

that doesn’t ignore the good work that States do to protect their air, land, and 

water, as well as their economies. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for bringing us here 

today. Thank you for your kind words, as well. 

Let me begin by welcoming our nominee, his wife Marlyn, and 

his children, Cade and McKenna, to what is a very important hearing. 

Mr. Pruitt, this past Sunday morning I rose at dawn. I went for 

a long run, took me through a beautiful State park in the northern 

part of Delaware. I reached the park at sunrise, just as the sun 

was coming up and the sky was turning a brilliant blue. The winter air was crisp and clear. Wildlife was all around. In a word, it 

was perfect. 

As I ran, I said a prayer of thanksgiving for the gift of this moment. Later that morning, my wife and I went to church. There we 

joined our congregation in singing a hymn that began with these 

words: ‘‘For the beauty of the earth, for the glory of the skies, for 

the love which from our birth over and around us lies, Lord of all, 

to these we raise this our hymn of grateful praise.’’ 

Those words filled my heart with emotion then, and they do so 

again this morning. 

In little more than 48 hours, Donald Trump will place his hand 

on a Bible. He will take an oath to defend our country and Con-
5 

stitution. That Bible reminds us repeatedly to love our neighbors 

as ourselves, and it answers the question who is my neighbor. Also 

found in those pages are scores of admonitions about another obligation that those of us who live on this Earth are expected to meet. 

Simply put, we are to serve as stewards of this planet. I believe 

that we have a moral obligation to do so. 

A great many of my colleagues in the Senate agree, and so do 

most Americans. We need to be convinced that you embrace it as 

well; not just with your words, but with your deeds. Much of your 

record suggests otherwise. And today, and in the days that follow, 

we need to find out where the truth lies. 

Leading the Environmental Protection Agency is hard work. That 

Agency, created by President Richard Nixon and a bipartisan Congress 46 years ago, is tasked with implementing our Nation’s most 

important clean air, clean water, and safe chemical laws. The EPA 

is required to use sound science to protect both our environment 

and our public health. By and large the EPA has done this successfully for decades while our economy has continued to grow. 

Many in this room today may not remember a time before the 

EPA, a time when States had to work individually to protect citizens and the community in which they live, a time before the Clean 

Water Act and Clean Air Act were signed into law, a time when 

businesses operating throughout the U.S. were faced with a myriad 

of conflicting State and local laws affecting our health and our environment. The choking smog and soot of a half-century ago seem 

unfathomable now. Rivers on fire and deadly toxic plumes sound 

like something from another world, impossible in our United States 

of America. 

Today we have the luxury of largely forgetting these frightening 

circumstances thanks to the efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency, its employees, partnership with State and local agencies and with companies across America. In fact the EPA and its 

many partners throughout this country have been so successful 

that it is easy for some of us to forget just why this Agency is so 

critical. For some it is also easy to presume that there is not much 

more for the Agency to do, and that just could not be further from 

the truth. 

The environmental threats that we face today are real, and they 

don’t respect State boundaries. As we consider a nominee to run 

our Nation’s foremost environmental agency it is worth reminding 

everyone here why the mission of the EPA is so critical and just 

what is at stake. 

Over time, my State of Delaware has made great strides in 

cleaning up our own air pollution, but our work only goes so far. 

Delaware, like many States on the East Coast, sits at the end of 

what is known as America’s tailpipe. Ninety percent of the air pollution in Delaware comes from outside of the First State, from 

power plants hundreds of miles away in places like Kentucky, 

Ohio, Indiana, and across the Midwest. 

As Governor of Delaware, if I had eliminated every source of air 

pollution with my State, stopped every combustion source and ordered every motor vehicle off the roads, Delaware would still have 

faced deadly doses of air pollution. Should children and others in 

Delaware really be forced to live with the consequences of decisions 
6 

made by polluters hundreds or even thousands of miles away who 

gain economically from our disadvantage? I don’t think so. 

Fortunately, the EPA has recently implemented something called 

the Good Neighbor Rule to make sure that all States do their fair 

share to clean up the air. Every citizen in this country has the 

right to breathe clean air, regardless of whether they are in a 

downwind or upwind State. That is why we have the EPA. 

I remember fishing as a boy with my dad along the Dan River, 

near my hometown of Danville, Virginia. We brought home the fish 

that we caught to eat, and my mom and sister ate them as well. 

Today that quintessential American pastime comes with a warning 

label. That river, along with countless other polluted streams, rivers, and lakes in all 50 States are subject to public health 

advisories cautioning citizens against eating the mercury-laden fish 

found in them. 

We have known for decades that most of the mercury in our fish 

comes from air pollution that is emitted from the dirtiest coal 

plants and then settles in our waterways. We also know that mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that accumulates in the human body 

over time, threatening the health of this environment and this generation and for generations to come. 

The EPA recently issued public health protections to clean up the 

toxic air pollution from our dirtiest coal plants, allowing families in 

Delaware and thousands of other communities to once again eat 

the fish from our rivers, our lakes, our streams without concern of 

mercury poisoning. That is why we have the EPA. 

Too often, when State and local communities are pinched for 

cash, they try to save money by short-changing clean air and clean 

water protections, and improvements to water infrastructure are 

oftentimes ignored. Corners are cut; solutions are adopted that may 

save dollars now but inflict costly and unnecessary damage later. 

As we have seen most recently in the city of Flint, Michigan, these 

cuts can have a terrible—even a tragic—impact on the health of 

the most vulnerable in our society, especially the youngest among 

us. 

Today, the citizens of Flint still lack clean drinking water, and 

the new generation there which has been exposed to high levels of 

lead faces an uncertain future. That is why we have the EPA. 

You may not know it, Mr. Pruitt, but Delaware is the lowest 

lying State in our Nation. The highest point in Delaware is a 

bridge. Back home the reality that our climate is changing is not 

up for grabs or up for debate. Families and business owners face 

the stark reality of climate change every single day, and tackling 

that challenge is not just the right thing to do, what is best for 

Delaware’s economy; it is a matter of survival. 

Take a ride with me sometime some 30 miles south of Dover Air 

Force Base, heading east toward the Delaware Bay, on Prime Hook 

Road, and you will see what I mean. There was a time not long 

ago where, just before you reached the Delaware Bay, you came to 

a parking lot. Today that parking lot is under water. Stand there 

with me, looking to the east, and you will see part of a concrete 

bunker slipping out of the water. Recently, someone showed me a 

photo taken of that bunker in 1947, the year I was born. It was 
7 

on dry land, 500 feet west of the water’s edge. Five hundred feet 

west. 

But our little State alone cannot stem the flow of greenhouse 

gases into our atmosphere that is largely causing our climate to 

change, our seas to rise, and our coastline to retreat. Every State 

must do its fair share to safeguard our climate and their neighbors. 

That is why we have the EPA. 

Examples of air and water pollution produced by one State and 

fouling the air and water of others can still be found in too many 

parts of America, like the runoff from Pennsylvania that degrades 

the waters of the Chesapeake Bay or the haze exported from other 

States that oftentimes shrouds the Smokey Mountains and degrades visibility at the Grand Canyon. That is why we have the 

EPA. 

Some of my colleagues describe me as recovering Governor. For 

the most part I believe that Governors and Presidents deserve deference in picking the members of their leadership teams, and as a 

result I have given Presidents of both parties that deference in 

most instances. Since coming to the Senate in 2001 I have opposed 

only one of the nominees for EPA administrator; supporting two 

Republicans, two Democrats nominees. Subsequently, every EPA 

administrator that I have supported demonstrated clearly that they 

were committed to furthering the overall mission of the EPA, protecting human health and our environment. 

I am also committed to a full and fair confirmation process with 

respect to our nominations that this President-elect has offered, 

too. 

Having said that, though, I have shared with Mr. Pruitt—and I 

will share with my colleagues today—that too much of what I have 

seen of his record of the environment and his views about the role 

of EPA are troubling, and in some cases deeply troubling. Even 

former Republican EPA Administrator Christie Whitman, with 

whom I served for 7 years as Governor of neighboring States, recently said that she ‘‘can’t recall ever having seen an appointment 

of someone who is so disdainful of the Agency and the science behind what the Agency does.’’ 

Let me conclude with this. It is hard to imagine a more damning 

statement, and from one who served not long ago in that position 

of trust, Mr. Pruitt, to which you have been nominated. Today is 

your opportunity to show us that she has gotten it wrong. To be 

honest with you, coming to this hearing today, I fear that she has 

gotten it right. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

We are gathered here today to consider the nomination of Oklahoma Attorney 

General Scott Pruitt to be the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Let me begin by welcoming the nominee, his wife Marlyn, and their children Cade and McKenna to this important hearing. 

Mr. Pruitt, this past Sunday morning I rose at dawn and went for a long run that 

took me through a beautiful State park in northern Delaware. I reached the park 

at sunrise as the sky was turning a brilliant blue. The winter air was crisp and 

clear. Wildlife was all around. In a word, it was perfect. 
8 

As I ran, I said a prayer of thanksgiving for the gift of that moment. Later that 

morning, my wife and I went to church. There we joined our congregation in singing 

a hymn that began with these words: ‘‘For the beauty of the earth, for the glory 

of the skies, for the love which from our birth over and around us lies. Lord of all 

to thee we raise, this our hymn of grateful praise.’’ Those words filled my heart with 

emotion then, and they do so again this morning. 

In a little more than 48 hours Donald Trump will place his hand on a Bible and 

take an oath to defend our country and Constitution. That Bible reminds us repeatedly to love our neighbors as ourselves, and it answers the question, ‘‘Who is my 

neighbor?’’ Also found in those pages are scores of admonitions about another obligation that those of us who live on this earth are expected to meet. Simply put, we 

are to serve as stewards of this planet. 

I believe that we have a moral obligation to do so. A great many of my colleagues 

in the Senate agree. So do most Americans. We need to be convinced that you embrace it, as well, not just with your words, but with your deeds. Much of your record 

suggests otherwise. Today, and in the days that follow, we need to find where the 

truth lies. 

Leading the Environmental Protection Agency is hard work. That agency—created 

by President Nixon and a bipartisan Congress 46 years ago—is tasked with implementing our Nation’s most important clean air, clean water, and safe chemical laws. 

The EPA is required to use sound science to protect both our environment and 

our public health. By and large, the EPA has done this successfully for decades, 

while our economy has continued to grow. 

Many in this room today may not remember a time before the EPA: a time when 

States had to work individually to protect citizens and the communities in which 

they lived. A time before the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act were signed into 

law. A time when businesses operating throughout the U.S. were faced with a myriad of conflicting State and local laws affecting our health and environment. 

The choking smog and soot of a half-century ago seems unfathomable now. Rivers 

on fire and deadly, toxic plumes sound like something from another world—impossible in our United States. 

Today, we have the luxury of largely forgetting these frightening circumstances 

thanks to the efforts of the EPA and its employees, in partnership with State and 

local agencies and with companies across America. In fact the EPA and its many 

partners throughout this country have been so successful that it’s easy for some of 

us to forget just why this agency is so critical. For some it’s also easy to presume 

there’s not much more for the agency to do. That could not be further from the 

truth. 

The environmental threats we face today are real, and they don’t respect State 

boundaries. As we consider a nominee to run our Nation’s foremost environmental 

agency, it’s worth reminding everyone here why the mission of the EPA is so critical 

and just what’s at stake. 

Over time, my State of Delaware has made great strides in cleaning up our own 

air pollution, but our work only goes so far. 

Delaware, like many States on the East Coast, sits at the end of what’s known 

as ‘‘America’s tailpipe.’’ Ninety percent of the air pollution in Delaware comes from 

outside the First State—from power plants hundreds of miles away in places like 

Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, and across the Midwest. 

As Governor of Delaware—even if I had eliminated every source of air pollution 

within our State by stopping every combustion source and ordering every motor vehicle off of our roads—Delawareans still would have faced deadly doses of air pollution. Should children and others in Delaware really be forced to live with the consequences of decisions made by polluters hundreds—or even thousands—of miles 

from us? I don’t think so. 

Fortunately, the EPA has recently implemented something called the Good Neighbor rule to make sure that all States do their fair share to clean up the air. Every 

citizen in this country has a right to breathe clean air, regardless of whether they 

live in a downwind or upwind State. That is why we have the EPA. 

I remember fishing as a boy with my father along the Dan River near my hometown of Danville, Virginia. We brought home the fish we caught to eat. My mom 

and sister ate them, too. Today that quintessential American pastime comes with 

a warning label. That river, along with countless other polluted streams, rivers, and 

lakes in all 50 States, are subject to public health advisories cautioning citizens 

against eating the mercury-laden fish found in them. 

We’ve known for decades that most of the mercury in our fish comes from the air 

pollution that is emitted from the dirtiest coal plants and then settles in our waterways. We also know that mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that accumulates in the 
9 

human body over time, threatening the health of this generation and generations 

to come. 

The EPA recently issued public health protections to clean up the toxic air pollution from our dirtiest coal plants, allowing families in Danville and thousands of 

other communities to once again eat the fish from our rivers, lakes, and streams 

without concerns of mercury poisoning. That’s why we have the EPA. 

Too often, when States and local communities are pinched for cash, they try to 

save money by shortchanging clean air and clean water protections. Improvements 

to water infrastructure are often ignored, corners are cut, and solutions are adopted 

that may save dollars now but inflict costly and unnecessary damage later. 

As we’ve seen most recently in the city of Flint, Michigan, these cuts can have 

a terrible—and even tragic—impact on the health of the most vulnerable in our society, especially the youngest among them. Today the citizens of Flint still lack clean 

drinking water, and a new generation there, which has been exposed to high levels 

of lead, faces an uncertain future. That’s why we have the EPA. 

You may not know it, Mr. Pruitt, but Delaware is the lowest lying State in our 

Nation. The highest point in the First State is a bridge. Back home the reality that 

our climate is changing is not up for debate. Families and business owners face the 

stark realities of climate change every single day. Tackling that challenge is not just 

the right thing to do or what is best for Delaware’s economy. It’s a matter of survival. 

Take a ride with me some 30 miles south of the Dover Air Force Base heading 

east toward the Delaware Bay on Prime Hook Road, and you’ll see what I mean. 

There was a time not long ago when just before you reached the Bay you came to 

a parking lot. Today, that parking lot is under water. Stand there with me looking 

to the east and you’ll see part of a concrete bunker sticking up out of the Bay. Recently, someone showed me a photo taken of that bunker in 1947, the year I was 

born. It was on dry land, 500 feet west of the water’s edge. 

But our little State alone cannot stem the flow of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere that is largely causing our climate to change, our seas to rise, and our 

coastlines to retreat. Every State must do its fair share to safeguard our climate 

and their neighbors. That’s why we have the EPA. 

Examples of air and water pollution produced by one State and fouling the air 

and water of others can still be found in too many parts of America, like the runoff 

from Pennsylvania that degrades the waters of the Chesapeake Bay. Or the haze— 

exported from other States—that oftentimes shrouds the Smoky Mountains and degrades visibility at the Grand Canyon. That’s why we have the EPA. 

Some of my colleagues describe me as a ‘‘recovering’’ Governor. For the most part 

I believe that Governors and Presidents deserve deference in picking the members 

of their leadership teams. As a result I’ve given Presidents of both parties that deference in most instances. 

Since coming to the Senate in 2001 I have opposed only one nominee for EPA Administrator—supporting two Republican nominees and two Democratic nominees. 

Subsequently, every EPA Administrator nominee that I’ve supported demonstrated 

clearly that they were committed to furthering the overall mission of the EPA—protecting human health and our environment. 

I am also committed to a full and fair confirmation process with respect to the 

nominations of this President-elect, too. Having said that, though, I’ve shared with 

Mr. Pruitt, and I’ll share with my colleagues, that too much of what I’ve seen of 

his record on the environment and his views about the role of the EPA are troubling, and in some cases deeply troubling. 

Even former Republican EPA Administrator Christie Whitman—with whom I 

served for 7 years as Governors of neighboring States—recently said that she can’t 

‘‘ . . . recall ever having seen an appointment of someone who is so disdainful of the 

agency and the science behind what the agency does.’’ 

It’s hard to imagine a more damning statement and from one who served, not that 

long ago, in the position of trust, Mr. Pruitt, to which you have been nominated. 

Today is your opportunity to show that she’s gotten it wrong. But to be honest 

with you, coming into this hearing today, I fear that she’s gotten it right. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Carper. 

In a few moments I would like to turn to Senators Inhofe and 

Lankford from their home State of Oklahoma regarding the nominee’s distinguished career. Before I do that, though, I want to say 

a few words about Senator Inhofe and his distinguished career as 

chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. 
10 

First, I want to thank my friend, Jim Inhofe, for his leadership 

of this Committee. His dedication to protecting the environment, 

rebuilding our Nation’s infrastructure, strengthening the country’s 

economy was clearly evident throughout his time as Chairman. He 

worked across party lines to get things done. During the 114th 

Congress, under Jim Inhofe’s leadership this Committee held 67 

hearings. Of those, 8 were field hearings. Thirty-two bills passed 

out of the Committee that were signed into law. 

Chairman Inhofe oversaw the first long-term highway bill in a 

decade. This law will improve the Nation’s roads, bridges, transit 

systems, and rail transportation networks. He also worked on a bipartisan basis with former Ranking Member Barbara Boxer to pass 

badly needed Water Resources Development Act legislation. This 

new law prioritizes dam, waterway, and port construction projects, 

and it supports flood control projects that protect millions of people. 

For the first time in 40 years the Toxic Substances Control Act 

was modernized under Chairman Inhofe’s tenure. This law enacts 

a new uniform regulatory program that will improve public confidence in the safety of chemicals, promote innovation, and provide 

manufacturers with certainty regarding regulation. 

Chairman Inhofe also worked to keep the Administration accountable. Chairman Inhofe worked to ensure that there was oversight of overreaching Administration regulations concerning the 

Clean Power Plan, Waters of the U.S., the Stream Buffer Rule, coal 

ash regulations, and many more. 

So I am very glad that Senator Inhofe will remain on the Committee. I look forward to working closely with him to protect our 

environment and bolster our Nation’s economy. 

Senator Inhofe, thank you for your hard work, your dedication, 

and your leadership. 

Senator Inhofe, you are now recognized to introduce and talk 

about Attorney General Pruitt. 

Thank you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Barrasso, thank you very much, and I 

am looking forward to working in a very senior position on your 

Committee. This is the Committee that gets things done, as Scott 

Pruitt is fully aware. 

I thank you, Chairman Barrasso, and also you, Senator Carper, 

for letting me join you for this, and I am honored to join my fellow 

Senator, Senator Lankford, in introducing not just the Attorney 

General, Scott Pruitt, but my good friend, and to offer my support 

for his nomination to be the next Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Though neither of us was born in Oklahoma, we got here as 

quick as we could, and both ended up in Tulsa, so he is also a 

neighbor. Attorney General Pruitt, you will be glad to know this, 

he was born in Kentucky. He showed what he was made out of and 

ended up a great baseball player that was able to get a scholarship 

and go through the university there. Then he came to Oklahoma, 

went through law school at the University of Tulsa, and did all 

kinds of things, specialized at that time in constitutional law. 
11 

In 1998 General Pruitt ran and was elected to the Oklahoma 

State Senate, where he served 6 years and he quickly became a 

leader. Indeed, success has followed him throughout his law practice to the State Senate, to become the co-owner and manager, 

managing general partner of Oklahoma City’s AAA minor league 

baseball team—see, we have something in addition to the Thunder 

that we are all fully aware of—and is currently Oklahoma’s Attorney General. 

Through the course of his career, Attorney General Pruitt has 

stood out as a champion of State and individual rights and has 

fought against Federal overreach. He has earned a reputation as 

a defender of the rule of law and has worked to keep the role of 

the Federal Government in check. As head of the Environmental 

Protection Agency, Attorney General Pruitt will ensure that the 

Agency fulfills the role delegated to it by the laws passed by Congress, nothing more and nothing less. 

Oklahoma is an energy and agricultural State, but we are also 

a State that knows what it means to protect the environment while 

balancing competing interests. As Attorney General, Scott was instrumental—oh, this is a big deal. We actually have had an ongoing litigation for 100 years; it was the State of Oklahoma, the city 

of Oklahoma City, the Choctaw Nation, the Chickasaw Nation. It 

was over water rights. We weren’t able to resolve that problem. 

This guy comes trotting along and resolves it overnight after 100 

years of failures of trying to get this done. 

He has also worked with Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board to protect the scenic rivers. He is kind of a hero of the scenic rivers place. 

People don’t know, Scott, that we in Oklahoma actually have more 

miles of freshwater shoreline—— 

[Interruption from audience.] 

Senator BARRASSO. I would ask the Senator to please suspend his 

remarks for a few seconds. 

[Interruption from audience.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. They obviously don’t like scenic rivers, but we 

do in Oklahoma. 

Anyway, additionally, in 2012 Oklahoma partnered with four 

other States—New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, and Texas—to bring 

together State official conservation groups, energy and ag industries, and other private landowners to address the challenges facing one of the problems that we have there having to do with what 

might become an endangered species. It was an effort that saw success in its first year. Now, this is working with four different 

States. Despite endorsing the plan, the Fish and Wildlife Service 

moved forward with listing the species as threatened, endangering 

the cooperation reached between these varying interests. 

So Attorney General Pruitt sued the Fish and Wildlife Department for ignoring the unique cooperative agreement, and he won. 

He wins. He wins these things. 

Yes, as Attorney General, Scott Pruitt has fought the EPA, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service, the oil companies, and the outgoing Administration on many fronts. But all of these suits were brought to 
12 

protect State and local interests from overzealous and activist executive agencies. 

Over the last 8 years the Obama administration has advanced a 

radical environmental agenda, has exhibited a deep distrust of 

State governments and private landowners, and has worked to obstruct the fossil fuel industry and agriculture producers, the most 

ardent protectors of the environment. These are industries and interests that Oklahoma relies on, and far from being an enemy of 

the environment Scott has proven himself to be an expert at balancing economic growth with environmental stewardship. 

So it is my belief that Attorney General Pruitt will return the 

Environmental Protection Agency to its proper role as a steward 

for the environment, acting within the bounds prescribed by Congress and the Constitution. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and colleagues for this 

opportunity. I am honored to introduce my friend, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott 

Pruitt, and to offer my support for his nomination to be the next Administrator of 

the Environmental Protection Agency. Though neither of us were born in Oklahoma, 

we both got there as fast as we could and made the Tulsa area our home. 

Attorney General Pruitt grew up in Kentucky and was enough of a baseball 

standout in high school to earn a scholarship to the University of Kentucky where 

he earned the reputation for being driven and a winner. Attorney General Pruitt 

finished his undergrad at Georgetown College in Georgetown, Kentucky, and then 

graduated from law school at the University of Tulsa in 1993, where he remained 

and became a practicing attorney specializing in Constitutional Law. 

In 1998 Attorney General Pruitt ran and was elected to the Oklahoma State Senate where he served for 6 years. He quickly became a standout of the party. Indeed, 

success has followed him from his law practice, to the State Senate, to become coowner and managing general partner of Oklahoma City’s Triple-A minor league 

baseball team, and currently as Oklahoma’s Attorney General. 

Through the course of his career Attorney General Pruitt has stood out as a champion of State and individual rights and has fought against Federal overreach. He 

has earned a reputation as a defender of the rule of law and has worked to keep 

the role of the Federal Government in check. 

As head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Attorney General Pruitt will ensure that the agency fulfills the role delegated to it by the laws passed by Congress—nothing more, nothing less. Oklahoma is an energy and agriculture State, 

but we’re also a State that knows what it means to protect the environment while 

balancing competing interests. 

As Attorney General, Scott was instrumental in negotiating a water rights settlement between the State, Oklahoma City, and the Chickasaw and Choctaw nations— 

a dispute that dates back to the 19th century. The negotiated settlement maintains 

tribal sovereignty and environmental conservation guidelines while also guaranteeing Oklahoma City’s access to a vital drinking water source. 

He has also worked with the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality 

and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board to protect Oklahoma’s Scenic Rivers from 

upstream pollution. In fact the executive director of DEQ credits Attorney General 

Pruitt’s actions and insistence on using sound science with the fact that Oklahoma’s 

desired water standard was preserved. 

Additionally, in 2012 Oklahoma partnered with New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, 

and Texas to bring together State officials, conservation groups, energy and agricultural industries, and other private landowners to address the challenges facing the 

lesser prairie-chicken—an effort that saw success in its first year and continues to 

do so. Despite endorsing the plan the Fish and Wildlife Service moved forward with 

listing the species as threatened, endangering the cooperation reached by these 

varying interests. As Attorney General, Scott sued the Fish and Wildlife Service for 

ignoring this unique cooperative agreement and won. 
13 

Yes, as Attorney General, Scott Pruitt has fought the EPA, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and the out-going Administration on many fronts, but all of these suits 

were brought to protect State and local interests from overzealous and activist executive agencies. Over the last 8 years the Obama administration has advanced a radical environmental agenda, has exhibited a deep distrust of State governments and 

private landowners, and has worked to obstruct the fossil fuel industry and agriculture producers, the most ardent protectors of the environment. These are industries and interests that Oklahoma relies on. And far from being an enemy of the 

environment, Scott has proven himself as the expert at balancing economic growth 

with environmental stewardship. 

It is my belief that Attorney General Pruitt will return the Environmental Protection Agency to its proper role as a steward of the environment, acting within the 

bounds prescribed by Congress and the Constitution. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to enter into the record an oped in support of Attorney General Pruitt from Scott Thompson, executive director 

of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Lankford. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES LANKFORD, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator LANKFORD. Chairman Barrasso, thank you. Ranking 

Member Carper, members of the Committee, thank you for allowing me to be able to be here today, introduce my fellow Oklahoman, 

and for Senator Inhofe and I to both be able to stand with him and 

to be able to introduce who we believe will be a tremendous nominee as Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency. 

It is an honor to speak in support of Attorney General Pruitt 

today. Over the past 6 years Scott has been a leader in the State 

of Oklahoma, strongly committed to enforcing the law and adhering 

to the Constitution. He is a statesman. He is a dedicated public 

servant. As Administrator of the EPA I would fully expect Scott to 

lead the Agency to follow every environmental law and to partner 

with States, local authorities, and tribes to do what is best for our 

present and for our future. 

As Attorney General of Oklahoma he stood shoulder to shoulder 

with more than half of the States to ensure the Federal Government operates within the bounds of the statute and the Constitution. He has argued consistently that many regulations that the 

EPA promulgates are in fact the responsibilities of State governments first. 

In an environment where Chevron deference is precedent, it is 

critical that the leader of an agency that has such wide latitude to 

extract costs from the economy also respects the importance of our 

Federalist foundation and the pocketbooks of hardworking families. 

In previous congressional testimony, Scott has emphasized the 

importance of laws like the Clean Air Act, stressing that the intention was for States and the EPA to work together under a model 

of cooperative federalism that protects the environment while considering economic costs. 

As Attorney General Scott has been an ardent defender of the 

rule of law for Oklahomans. In 2012 he sued British Petroleum, arguing that they knowingly double-dipped through the collection of 

funds through a clean up fund despite having insurance coverage 

for environmental clean up. He did not hesitate to stand up for his 

constituents and for his State. 
14 

1Testimony before the House Oversight Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, 

Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform, June 28, 2012. 

Mike Turpen is the former Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma and the former Chairman of the Oklahoma Democratic 

Party. He spoke out in mid-December, when Scott was first announced. Let me just read a short portion of his very long statement in support of Scott Pruitt. 

Former Attorney General Mike Turpen and our former Democratic Party Chairman said, ‘‘Oklahoma Attorney Scott Pruitt is a 

good choice to head up the Environmental Protection Agency. I am 

convinced Scott Pruitt will work to protect our natural habitats, reserves, and resources. His vision for a proper relationship between 

protection and prosperity makes him superbly qualified to serve as 

our next EPA Administrator.’’ 

Scott is an active member and a deacon at his church, First Baptist Church Broken Arrow, a congregation of almost 2,000 people. 

He is incredibly strong in his faith, and he strives to walk in integrity. Scott is a serious baseball fan, as well. If you run out of environmental or legal questions today, which I doubt you will, but if 

you run out, why don’t you ask him a couple questions about baseball strategy and spring training, which starts in just a few weeks. 

I have to tell you Scott is a friend. I have prayed with Scott. I 

have seen Scott struggle with hard decisions that affect our State’s 

future. I have seen Scott listen to people to try to learn all sides 

of an issue. And I have seen Scott take difficult stands on matters 

of law. I think he will be an excellent Administrator for the EPA, 

and I think he will do very well today in getting a chance to bring 

you the confidence that he will work hard for our Nation’s present 

and for the future. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Lankford follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES LANKFORD, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, members of the Committee, thank 

you for graciously allowing Senator Inhofe and me the opportunity to join you this 

morning to introduce our fellow Oklahoman, Scott Pruitt, as nominee to be the next 

EPA Administrator. 

It is an honor to speak in support of Attorney General Pruitt today. Over the past 

6 years Scott has been a leader in the State of Oklahoma strongly committed to enforcing the law and adhering to the Constitution. He is a statesman and dedicated 

public servant. 

As the Administrator of the EPA, I would fully expect Scott to lead the Agency 

to follow every environmental law and to partner with States, local authorities, and 

tribes to do what is best for our present and our future. 

As Attorney General of Oklahoma, he’s stood shoulder to shoulder with more than 

half the States to ensure that the Federal Government operates within the bounds 

of statute and the Constitution. He has argued consistently that many regulations 

the EPA promulgates are in fact the responsibility of State government. 

In an environment where Chevron deference is precedent it is critical that the 

leader of an agency that has such wide latitude to extract costs from the economy 

respects the importance of our federalist foundation and the pocketbooks of hardworking families. 

In previous congressional testimony he has the stressed the importance of laws 

like the Clean Air Act, stressing that the intention was for States and the EPA to 

work together under a model of cooperative federalism that protects the environment, while considering economic costs. 1

As Attorney General, Pruitt has been an ardent defender of the rule of law for 

Oklahomans. In 2012 he sued BP alleging they ‘‘knowingly double-dipped’’ through 
15 

the collection of funds through a cleanup fund despite having insurance coverage for 

environmental clean up. He did not hesitate to stand up for his constituents and 

his State. 

Mike Turpen, former Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma and the former 

chairman of the Oklahoma Democratic Party, spoke out in mid-December when 

Scott was first announced. Let me read just a short portion of his long statement— 

he stated: ‘‘Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is a good choice to head up the 

Environmental Protection Agency. I am convinced Scott Pruitt will work to protect 

our natural habitats, reserves, and resources. His vision for a proper relationship 

between protection and prosperity makes him superbly qualified to serve as our 

next EPA Administrator.’’ 

Scott is an active member and Deacon at his church—First Baptist Broken 

Arrow—a congregation of almost 2,000. He is incredibly strong in his faith and 

strives to walk with integrity. 

Scott is a serious baseball fan. If you run out of environmental or legal questions 

today, which I doubt you will, ask him about baseball strategy and spring training, 

which starts in only a few weeks. 

Scott is a friend. I have prayed with Scott, seen Scott struggle with hard decisions 

that affect our State’s future, seen Scott listen to people to learn all sides of an 

issue, and I have seen Scott take difficult stands on matters of law. I think he will 

be an excellent EPA Administrator. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you so very much, Senator 

Lankford and Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Lankford, you are welcome to stay, but you can’t stay in 

that seat. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LANKFORD. You got it. 

Senator BARRASSO. Now I would like to welcome Attorney General Pruitt to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. 

Welcome. I invite you to first introduce your family and then proceed with your statement. Congratulations, and welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT PRUITT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, NOMINATED TO BE ADMINISTRATOR, 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. PRUITT. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, members of the Committee. It is an honor and a privilege to be before you today to be considered for the position of EPA 

Administrator. 

I first want to say thank you to Senators Inhofe and Lankford 

for their opening comments. Senator Inhofe has been a mentor and 

a friend to me many, many years, and he spent a lot of time with 

me through this process, introducing me to many of you, and I really appreciate his guidance and his help. 

Senator Lankford was a friend well before he entered Congress, 

and he is already serving Oklahoma and this country with great 

distinction. 

Mr. Chairman, you indicated to introduce my family. I am 

blessed today to have my family in attendance with me. My wife, 

Marlyn, of 27 years, is in attendance, along with my children, 

McKenna and Cade. There is a little change going on in their life 

as well. McKenna is actually graduating from Oklahoma University this spring and Senator Whitehouse’s alma mater of the University of Virginia Law School. And my son is going to be graduating high school and heading to Oklahoma University, following 

in his sister’s footsteps, to be a Boomer Sooner. 
16 

So there is lots of change going on in their lives, lots of change 

going on in my family’s life, and lots of change going on in the 

country. And I think the people of this country are really hungry 

for some change. 

And with change comes an opportunity for growth, an opportunity to assess how we can reprioritize as a Nation. And when I 

ponder leading the EPA I get excited about the great work to be 

done on behalf of our Nation and being a good steward of the natural resources we have as a Nation. What could be more important 

than protecting our Nation’s waters, improving our air, and managing the land that we have been blessed with as a Nation, all the 

while protecting the health and welfare of our people? 

So, if confirmed, I would lead the EPA with the following principles in mind. 

First, we must reject as a Nation the false paradigm that if you 

are pro-energy, you are anti-environment, and if you are pro-environment, you are anti-energy. I utterly reject that narrative. In 

this Nation we can grow our economy, harvest the resources God 

has blessed us with, while also being good stewards of the air, 

land, and water by which we have been favored. It is not an eitheror proposition. 

Next, we should celebrate the great progress that we have made 

as a Nation since the inception of the EPA and the laws that have 

been passed by this body, but recognize that we have much work 

to do. 

Third, rule of law matters. Process matters. It inspires confidence in those that are regulated. The law is static, not transient. 

Regulators are supposed to make things regular, to fairly and equitably enforce the rules and not pick winners and losers. A regulator 

should not be for or against any sector of our economy. Instead, a 

regulator ought to follow law in setting up the rules so that those 

who are regulated can plan, allocate resources to meet the standards versus operating in a state of uncertainty and duress. 

Fourth, federalism matters. It matters because Congress says so. 

And because we need to achieve good outcomes as a Nation for air 

and water quality, we need the partnership of the States to achieve 

that. It is our State regulators who oftentimes best understand the 

local needs and the uniqueness of our environmental challenges. 

Plus, our State regulators possess the resources and expertise to 

enforce our environmental laws. 

Fifth, public participation is key. We need to hear all voices as 

we make decisions on behalf of our country with respect to environmental laws. 

Two final things personally. I seek to be a good listener, to listen 

and to lead. You can’t do one without the other. Listen to those career staff—— 

[Interruption from audience.] 

Mr. PRUITT. Listen to those career staff at the EPA, as I have 

done as Attorney General of Oklahoma, and listen to you here in 

Congress with respect to the needs of your respective States, and 

listen to the voice of all Americans as we seek to carry out our duties under the law. 

Last—and this is very important—I seek to serve with civility. 

Oftentimes as policymakers you deal with very contentious issues; 
17 

I have as Attorney General of Oklahoma as well. We deal with 

weighty issues, and there is passion on both sides of issues. But we 

should not succumb to personalizing matters. We should encourage 

open and civil discourse. One such issue where civil discourse is absent involves climate change. Let me say to you science tells us 

that the climate is changing, and that human activity in some 

manner impacts that change. The ability to measure with precision 

the degree and extent of that impact and what to do about it are 

subject to continuing debate and dialogue, and well it should be. 

So with these principles in mind I seek to answer your questions 

today, and I am honored to be here today to be considered for the 

position of EPA Administrator. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pruitt follows:] 
18 

Environmental Protection Agency Designate E. Scott Pruitt 

Attorney General, State of Oklahoma 

Senate Confirmation Hearing Opening Statement 

January 18, 2017 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, members of the Committee, it is a 

great privilege to be here today and be considered for the position of 

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. I want to start with what 

is most important to you and to the public: if I have the honor to serve as EPA 

Administrator, my overarching goal will be to lead in a way that our future 

generations inherit a better and healthier environment. It will be my absolute 

privilege to work with the thousands of dedicated public servants at EPA who 

have devoted their careers to helping realize this shared goal. I've always said that 

if you love what you do, you'll never work a day in your life, and I know those who 

work at EPA do so because of their tireless dedication to what they do. 

EPA serves a critical mission. As I have repeatedly emphasized in my testimony to 

this body and elsewhere, promoting and protecting a strong and healthy 

environment is among the lifeblood priorities for the government, and EPA is vital 

to that mission. When I was sworn in as Oklahoma Attorney General, I was 

immediately confronted with an important water quality issue on the scenic 

Illinois River. High phosphorous levels were causing a range of environmental 

problems, and Oklahoma-the downstream state-had been in a long-running 

dispute with Arkansas over how to control those levels. It's well understood that 
19 

interstate water issues are among the most challenging in environmental law and 

policy. However, I worked together with my Democratic counterpart in Arkansas 

to reach an historic agreement to clean up that river. While this was a proud 

success of cooperation among the states, I also came to appreciate that if we had 

not solved these challenges among us, EPA would provide a vital function in 

ensuring the protection of the shared resources. 

Environmental law, policy, and progress are all based on cooperation: 

cooperation between the States, cooperation between the States and EPA, and 

cooperation between the regulators and the public. Such cooperation is essential 

because clean air and water and a healthy environment are essential to the 

American way of life and key to our economic success and competitiveness. We 

should be proud of the progress we have made as a Nation in emphasizing 

environmental stewardship while also growing our economy. If confirmed as 

Administrator, I will work tireless to build on such progress in promoting a 

healthier environment and stronger economy for future generations by focusing 

on three core philosophies: rule of law, cooperative federalism, and public 

participation. 

First, under our Constitution, the role EPA plays in protecting the environment is 

defined by statute, just as statutes limit every federal agency. Members of this 

body and of the House of Representatives have worked tirelessly over decades to 

set the balance in environmental policies through the laws that they have passed. 

The EPA's role is to administer those laws faithfully. 

2 
20 

As Attorney General of Oklahoma, I saw examples where the Agency became 

dissatisfied with the tools Congress has given it to address certain issues, and 

bootstrapped its own powers and tools through rulemaking. This, unfortunately, 

has resulted only in protracted litigation, where the courts suspended most of 

these rules after years of delay. In the meantime, we lost the opportunity for true 

environmental protection as a Nation. This is not the right approach. 

If given the opportunity to serve as Administrator, I will work to ensure that EPA 

has a cooperative and collaborative relationship with Congress in fulfilling its 

intent. The agency must be committed to using its expertise in environmental 

issues not to end run Congress, but rather to implement its direction, so that 

Congress may decide the proper policies for our Nation, and the EPA can go about 

the business of enacting effective regulations that survive legal scrutiny. The 

purpose of regulation is to make things regular, to put the public on clear notice 

of its obligations, and to do so fairly, without picking winners and losers. I look 

forward to working with each of you to accomplish this goal. 

Second, cooperative federalism must be respected and applied by the EPA with 

regard to our environmental laws. Congress has wisely and appropriately directed 

the EPA through our environmental statutes to utilize the expertise and resources 

of the States to better protect the environment, and for the States to remain our 

nation's frontline environmental implementers and enforcers. If we truly want to 

advance and achieve cleaner air and water the States must be partners and not 

mere passive instruments of federal will. If confirmed, I will utilize the 

relationships I have forged with my counterparts in the States to ensure that EPA 

3 
21 

returns to its proper role, rather than using a heavy hand to coerce the States into 

effectuating EPA policies. 

Third, it is critical to me that EPA also truly listen to the diverse views of the 

American people, and learn from them. If confirmed as Administrator, I am 

committed to ensuring EPA's decisions are conducted through open processes 

that take into account the full range of views of the American people, including 

the economic consequences of any regulation. Environmental regulations should 

not occur in an economic vacuum. We can simultaneously pursue the mutual 

goals of environmental protection and economic growth. But that can only 

happen if EPA listens-listens to the views of all interested stakeholders, including 

the States, so that it can determine how to realize its mission while considering 

the pragmatic impacts of its decisions on jobs, communities, and most 

importantly, families. 

It is, after all, EPA's core mission to protect people. It is not EPA's mission to be 

against sectors of industry in general, or against particular States. My first and 

primary goal as Administrator will be to return the agency to that core mission of 

protecting the American people through common sense and lawful regulations. 

In closing, my time as Attorney General of Oklahoma afforded me the opportunity 

to travel my state meeting farmers, ranchers, landowners, and small business 

owners of all sorts. These are good people-- hardworking Americans who want to 

do the right thing by the environment. They want the air that their children 

breathe and the waters in which they swim to be clean. They want to follow the 

4 
22 

law. But recently they have felt hopeless, subject to a never ending torrent of new 

regulations that only a lawyer can understand. They fear the EPA, and that just 

shouldn't be the case. If confirmed, I will work tirelessly to ensure that the EPA 

acts lawfully, sensibly, and with those hardworking Americans ever in mind. 

Thank you. 

5 
23 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much. Welcome to your 

family, and thank you and congratulations again. 

Attorney General Pruitt, you have answered the Committee 

questionnaire. The United States Office of Government Ethics has 

stated that you are ‘‘in compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts of interest.’’ 

Throughout this hearing, and with the questions for the record, 

our Committee members will have an opportunity to learn more 

about your commitment to public service and our Nation. I would 

ask that throughout this hearing you please respond to the questions for the record. 

With that said, I have to ask the following questions that we ask 

of all nominees on behalf of the Committee. 

Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this Committee or 

designated members of this Committee, and other appropriate committees of the Congress, and provide information subject to appropriate and necessary security protection with respect to your responsibilities? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, documents, and electronic and other forms of information are 

provided to this Committee and its staff, and other appropriate 

committees, in a timely manner? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Do you know of any matters which you may 

or may not have disclosed that might place you in any conflict of 

interest if you are confirmed? 

Mr. PRUITT. No, Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Just a couple quick questions before we go back and forth. I 

would just ask if you could just please describe your environmental 

philosophy, what you would do to protect our environment. 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in my opening 

statement, I believe that the role of a regulator—and this may not 

sound too exciting—but is to make things regular. And I think one 

of the difficult challenges we see with individuals across the country is the inability to predict or know what is expected of them as 

far as their obligations under our environmental laws. And I really 

believe, Mr. Chairman, that if confirmed as EPA Administrator, 

this public participation, cooperative federalism, rule of law being 

the focus of how we do business at the EPA, is center to restoring 

confidence and certainty in those that are regulated. 

Clearly, the mission of the EPA, as I indicated in my opening 

statement, to protect our natural resources, protecting our water 

quality, improving our air, helping protect the health and welfare 

of our citizens, is key to the leadership of the EPA, and where enforcement is necessary, vigorous enforcement. I have done that as 

Attorney General in Oklahoma. I have taken very constructive 

steps against those that have violated the law, but we have done 

so, I think, in a very decisive and meaningful way. 

So, Mr. Chairman, with that in mind. 

Senator BARRASSO. I am going to ask one other question, then I 

am going to reserve the balance of my time for some interjection 

and questioning throughout. 
24 

There are still a number of environmental problems that I see in 

the country and in my State. Cold war legacy pollution is a serious 

problem, where chemical compounds are left deep in the soil from 

our military activity decades ago. Often there are not the tools yet 

available to adequately address this pollution. If confirmed, would 

you advocate increasing the EPA’s focus on innovative technological 

solutions to address these and other environmental problems? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and this Congress, this past 

Congress, as you indicated in your statement and as Senator 

Inhofe recognized, with the changes to the TSCA law, there are priorities this year, new authority actually that has been given to the 

EPA Administrator to order testing on certain chemicals. As I have 

spent time with some of the members on this Committee—Senator 

Gillibrand, as an example, mentioned PFOA as a concern with respect to the Safe Drinking Water Act, along with TSCA. So, yes, 

Mr. Chairman, I believe that there are priorities that are key to 

improving our environment, from CERCLA to TSCA, across air 

quality, with non-attainment to attainment, and would seek to 

focus and prioritize those efforts. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Pruitt, we don’t often have the kind of disruptions in this room and in this building that we are witnessing 

here today. This is extraordinary. Not unprecedented, but extraordinary. And people might ask, well, why are folks so concerned. 

Well, I will tell you why they are so concerned. And you don’t have 

to go back to March 3rd up in Detroit, Michigan, where Presidentelect—then Candidate Trump, Donald Trump said these words, 

‘‘We’re going to get rid of EPA in almost every form. We are going 

to have little tidbits left, but we are going to take a tremendous 

amount out.’’ That is what he said during the Republican primary. 

And what did he say after the election? Well, November 10th, 

Fox News with Chris Wallace, he said, ‘‘Environmental Protection, 

what they do is a disgrace. Every week they come out with new 

regulations.’’ Chris Wallace asked him, ‘‘Well, who is going to protect the environment?’’ He responded by saying, ‘‘We’ll be fine with 

the environment.’’ We’ll be fine with the environment. 

Well, we are concerned that we won’t be fine with the environment. Sometimes words do matter. And one of the concerns that I 

have is he is the President; you would be his nominee, you would 

be his EPA Administrator. All the things that he said in the campaign, do they just go away? In you he has put somebody in place 

who has actually defunded or led to the defunding of the Environmental Protection Unit within your own agency. And yet you have 

joined in a dozen or more lawsuits over the last 6 years, ever since 

you have been Attorney General, going after the EPA. That is why 

I have the kind of concern that you are witnessing here today; not 

just on that side of the dais, but on this side as well. 

You just took an oath, you raised your hand and took an oath 

to answer the questions that our Chairman asked of you, and one 

of them was a question dealing with your willingness to respond 

to reasonable questions that are asked of you. One of the things I 

asked of you—I submitted a letter that I think you received shortly 

after Christmas, maybe December 28th, close of business, and in 
25 

it I asked a lot of questions. I asked you to try to respond by January 9th. You didn’t respond to one of them by January 9th, not 

even one. Today’s hearing, I just asked my staff have you responded to any of those questions in writing that I asked almost 

3 weeks ago, and to my knowledge no response has yet been received. That is why we have a concern. That is why we have a concern. 

Mercury. 

Mr. PRUITT. I am sorry? 

Senator CARPER. I am going to start off by talking about mercury. In 2011 the EPA required dirty coal power plants to clean up 

mercury and air toxic emissions by issuing the Mercury and Air 

Toxic Standards Rule. This rule will reduce the mercury, a 

neurotoxin that contaminates our streams and our oceans, pollutes 

our fish, and harms our children’s health. 

As Attorney General, I believe you have been part of at least 14 

legal cases against the EPA and at least 3 of these cases against 

the EPA’s rules, to reduce mercury emissions from power plants. 

Is that correct? Just yes or no. 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, we have been involved in litigation around 

the MATS Rule. 

Senator CARPER. Is that correct, yes or no? 

Mr. PRUITT. As I indicated, yes, we have been a part of litigation 

involving the MATS Rule. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. It is my understanding that at least 

one of these cases against the mercury rule is still pending. Is that 

correct? Just yes or no. 

Mr. PRUITT. I believe so, Senator, yes. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. In the cases against the mercury 

rule, you questioned the EPA’s determination that mercury emissions from power plants are harmful to health and should be regulated. To be clear, have you ever supported a case against the EPA 

that claims, and this is a quote, ‘‘human exposure to 

methylmercury resulting from coal-fired power plants is exceedingly small,’’ yes or no? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, that is not a yes or no question, if I may. 

Senator CARPER. Fair enough. This position seems to question an 

EPA decision in 2000 in which the Agency determined, after almost 

a decade of study—and this is a quote from them, ‘‘mercury emissions from power plants pose significant hazards to public health 

and must be reduced.’’ Would you say the legal cases you have supported in the past directly challenge this Agency finding, yes or no? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, the challenges we have had as a State—— 

Senator CARPER. Yes or no? 

Mr. PRUITT [continuing]. Along with the other States—— 

Senator CARPER. Yes or no? 

Mr. PRUITT. If I may, Senator. If I may. 

Senator CARPER. Just hold your fire. Just hold your fire. 

Mr. PRUITT. OK. 

Senator CARPER. The legal position you have taken on mercury 

also seems to call in question the 2003 testimony from then-EPA 

Assistant Administrator of Air and Radiation, Jeff Holmstead, 

under George W. Bush, who sat right where you are sitting today, 

and this is what he said: ‘‘EPA is required to regulate mercury be-
26 

cause EPA determined that mercury emissions from power plants 

pose an otherwise unaddressed significant risk to health and the 

environment and because controls options to reduce this risk are 

available.’’ 

This Bush EPA statement on mercury risk seems contrary to the 

legal arguments you have supported in the past. Is that correct, yes 

or no? 

Mr. PRUITT. I agree with Mr. Holmstead’s position that mercury 

is something that is very dangerous to the environment and should 

be regulated under section 112. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you very much. 

Are you aware that the last three administrators have publicly 

stated that the EPA is required to regulate mercury from power 

plants because of the health risk, yes or no? 

Mr. PRUITT. I believe that mercury should be regulated under 

section 112. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you very much. 

My time is about to expire. I will just hold it there. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Well, I don’t think you had adequate time to answer some of the 

questions that were asked. Is there anything you would like to add, 

to elaborate on? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, Senator, thank you. I do want to say to Senator 

Carper’s concern with respect to the President-elect’s statements 

throughout the campaign, I believe there is a very important role 

for the Environmental Protection Agency. In fact you and I talked 

about that in your office. I believe that there are air quality issues 

and water quality issues that cross State lines; that the jurisdiction 

of the EPA, its involvement in protecting our air quality and improving our Nation’s waters is extremely important. 

And the EPA has served a very valuable role historically. After 

all it was Republicans who created the EPA under executive order 

in 1970, and this body has passed many pieces of legislation since 

the 1970s to focus upon improving our air and improving our water 

quality, and we have much to celebrate. Actually, there are six criteria pollutants under the NAAQS program since 1980 that are 

down 63 percent. We have made progress as a country, but we 

have work to do, and the EPA has a very valuable role, in partner 

with the States, to carry out those steps to ensure improving our 

air quality and protecting our Nation’s waters. 

So, Senator Carper, I am hopeful that—in response to your concern about the role of the EPA, I believe it is a very valuable role, 

and it is something that we should focus on in partnering with our 

States. 

With respect to mercury, the litigation that you referred to, there 

was no argument that we made from a State perspective that mercury is not a hazardous air pollutant under section 112. Our argument focused upon the cost-benefit analysis that the EPA failed to 

do, and in the Michigan v. EPA case the Supreme Court actually 

agreed. So it was more about the process, again, that the EPA was 

supposed to go through in regulating mercury to provide certainty 
27 

to those in the marketplace, not a statement with respect to whether mercury should be regulated or not under section 112. 

Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, General. I am glad you brought up 

this thing about the Clean Air Act. The amendments from 1990, I 

was one of the co-sponsors; it has been incredibly successful. You 

mentioned that we have reduced those pollutants by 63 percent, 

but what you didn’t add was that is in spite of the fact that we had 

153 percent increase in our economic activity. That is a major 

thing. 

In my introduction I mentioned this thing that you did that no 

one can figure out how you did it, involved a 100-year dispute between not just the State of Oklahoma and the city of Oklahoma 

City and the Choctaws and the Chickasaws. Do you want to share 

with us how you did that? You know, they tried for 100 years, and 

you came in and did it in less than 100 days. 

Mr. PRUITT. Less than 8 months into my administration as Attorney General, we were sued as a State by the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nation with respect to water in 17 counties in southeast Oklahoma. Many of you—if you know anything about water litigation, 

it generally takes decades to resolve water litigation. We were able 

to go from August 2011 until 2016 and negotiate an historic water 

rights agreement with those two Nations to provide certainty to 

those that are regulated, to provide a voice to the tribes with respect to water allocation and water quality, and the State has 

maintained its position as arbiter of how those permits are allocated, as well. 

So it was a partnership. It was the way things ought to work 

when litigation occurs. Sitting across the table from individuals 

and working together to try to solve the problem. And Senator, we 

were able to achieve that in record time, and I am very proud of 

what we did as a State and as the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nation 

together. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, that is good. I think, also, you got them all 

in one room, didn’t you? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. That works. 

You have been criticized by some of the people talking about 

some of your environmental record. I would like to be sure that 

people are aware of a number of people, I have some here that I 

will submit for the record, but a guy named Ed Fite is the vice 

president of scenic rivers and water quality of the GRDA. This is 

a person who has really been at the forefront of our scenic rivers 

program; he praises you, saying, ‘‘I found that General Pruitt has 

always done right by our scenic rivers. He has done everything constructive that he told me that he would do.’’ 

The same thing comes from the North Carolina Department of 

Environmental Quality, Donald van der Vaart. He wrote, ‘‘Pruitt is 

committed to clean air and clean water, and to restoring the EPA 

to its original mission of enforcing the environmental laws written 

by Congress.’’ 

J.D. Strong, head of the Water Resources Board, said, ‘‘Attorney 

General Pruitt’’ and he goes on and praises you. 
28 

I would like to know why it is you have become such a hero of 

the scenic river people. 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, Senator, as you know, Oklahoma has endured 

many decades of dispute with respect to phosphorus levels in the 

scenic Illinois River. In fact, there has been litigation that has been 

a part of that dispute for some time. There was actually a memorandum of understanding that Arkansas and Oklahoma entered 

into around 2002, 2003, and that memorandum expired during my 

time as Attorney General. There were many in government at the 

time that said we should just wait on the EPA to come in and address the issue, and I chose a different path. I actually reached out 

to my Democratic colleague, Dustin McDaniel, the Attorney General of the State of Arkansas, and we were able to negotiate an 

agreement that had phosphorus levels set at .037 scientifically 

driven and enforced on both sides of the border for the first time 

in history. 

So I think Mr. Fite is actually the head of the Scenic Illinois Rivers Commission. He has been center on this issue for a number of 

years, and I think his good word relates to the work that we did 

in my office, working with Dustin McDaniel, to achieve that good 

outcome. 

Senator INHOFE. I know my time has expired, but Mr. Chairman, 

I would like to enter into the record at this point in the record the 

statement by the DEQ that I referred to. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection, hearing none. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
29 

ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICIALS AND 

ASSOCIATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PRUITI 

Scott Thompson, Executive Director Of The Oklahoma Department Of 

Environmental Quality (DEQ) 

Oklahoma DEQ Executive Director Scott Thompson Said The EPA Is "In Good Hands 

With Scott Pruitt." "Pruitt looked for our guidance on rule changes and assisted us when we 

needed clarification of rules or legal support. He and his team focused their efforts on burdensome, 

and in my opinion, oftentimes unnecessary, rules EPA bas promulgated without clear authority. I 

believe EPA will be in good hands with Scott Pruitt and his confirmation will ensure an environmental 

agency that once again is responsive and fair to the citizens it serves." (Scott ThomJ>"'h. "EPA Will& In Oood Hnn<~> 

With Scott Pruitt,* Op-Ed, 1J1l!'r1 Wnrl{i, 1')./'30}16) 

• Thompson Also Said Pruitt "Exhibited Deftness At Moving Complex Environmental 

Issues ••• Toward Workable Solutions." "When Pruitt took office, his team exhibited deftness 

at moving complex environmental issues mired in protracted litigation toward workable solutions. 

Over the past six years, Pruitt's legal team has consistently shown deference to the legal expertise 

and professionals at DEQ. More importantly, I cannot recall an instance where they <lid not allow 

us to pursue legal action we deemed necessary." (SoottThaml"on. "EPA Will Be In Good Hands Wlth Scott PnHtt." Op-Ed, 

~Jtl.~« ljhrf<f.t2/3D/t6) 

Scott Thompson Said Pruitt "Was Essential" To A "Historic Water Rights Settlement 

With Indian Tribes In Southeast Oklahoma." "'Pruitt was essential in negotiating an historic 

water rights settlement with Indian tribes in southeast Oklahoma that preserved the ecosystems of 

scenic Jakes and rivers,' said Thompson. 'This settlement, when Pruitt first arrived in office, seemed 

impossible due to conflict among the parties involved.' Based upon Thompson's professional 

experience in working with Pruitt, he believes the Republican nominee would be an adept leader 

capable of communicating with states and industry heads to cut through the bureaucratic red tape 

and streamline processes. • ("OK DEQ'• s.ou ThomP'Qn: EPA 'In Oood linnM With Scott Pruitt; Q!;.Hu~.m!LT1l<illll. l/3/<7) 

• Thompson Also Said The EPA "Will Be In Good Hands" With Pruitt. "'I believe EPA will 

be in good hands with Scott Pruitt and his confirmation will ensure an environmental agency that 

once agmn is responsive and fair to the citizens it serves,' said Thompson." ("OK DBQ'sSoott Thnmpson: EPA 

'In Good Hnnds' With St.>att Pruitt, .. OK i':!l('.rJl!J.JiHJ(IJJ., t/3/t7) 

J.D. Strong, Director Of Oklahoma's Wildlife Conservation Department 

J.D. Strong, Head Of The Wlldlife Conservation Department In Oklahoma, Said The 

State Has "Made Great Strides" In Cleaning Up Oklahoma Rivers Under Pruitt. "In 2012, 

Arkansas regulators issued a report questioning Oklahoma's phosphorus standard. Pruitt chose to 

negotiate with his Arkansas counterparts. They agreed to hire a team of researchers from Baylor 

University to study the standards. The researchers reached a conclusion last month, largely affirming 

Oklahoma's pollution limits. 'He played a critical role in getting us all around the table,' said J.D. 

Strong, former head of the Oklahoma Water Resources Board. 'During his time as attorney general, I 

think we have made great strides when it comes to actual efforts to clean up scenic rivers in 

Oklahoma.m (Benjamin Storrowand Niina. Heikkinen, "Trump's EPA Pid Left Okla. Water Pollution Case Hanglng." J'il~~{PIIIl.li.~ft~t~ 1/3/17) 

J.D. Strong Also Said Pruitt "Has Been A Really Good Partner And Ally In Making Sure 

We Have Adequate [Environmental] Protections In Place. "J.D. Strong, rurector of the state 

Wildlife Conservation Department, said states are in a better position to protect the environment than 

federal officials. 'Attorney General Pruitt has been a really good partner and ally in making sure we 

have adequate protections in place for the quality and quantity of water,' said Strong, who previously 

led the Oklahoma Water Resources Board and was state secretary of the environment. 'I have never 
30 

seen him put us in a position where we had to compromise anything to protect the waters of 

0 klahoma. ,., {Rick Green. '"Oklahoma Officinls Support Pruitt For EPA And Have Thcir Own Problems With Federnl Regulators, .. 11w,_OJ/(1{:tt)trlfltl, 

1/3/17) 

Strong Said Pruitt "Worked Really Hard With Us" To Clean Up The Illinois River. 

"Pruitt has fought against new federal regulations on water pollution, but he has also acted to limit 

pollution in the Illinois River in eastern Oklahoma, Strong said. 'He worked really hard with us 

and Arkansas to come up with a sort of compromise agreement that would avoid litigation but put 

us on an aggressive path to increased protection on pollution in the lllinois River,' be said .... 

Strong said Pruitt helped Oklahoma. and Arkansas officials work together to limit this pollution. 

State officials, not the EPA, Jed the way. 'It is a success story, but there is also more work to be 

done,' Strong said.,. {Rick Gre-en. "Oklahoma Official& Support Pruitt For EPA And H;JYC'Thalr Own Problems Witb Fedend Regulators," 

Ibcl'J<lCifu/11Jjj]J,1/3/17) 

Donald Vwt Der Vaart, Secretary Of Environmental Quality OfNorth 

Carolina 

The Secretary Of The North Carolina Department Of Environmental Quality, Donald R. 

VanDer Vaart, Stated That Scott Pruitt Is The "Ideal Leader" For The EPA. "Amid the 

band-wringing and name-calling about the nomination of Scott Pruitt as EPA administrator, I would 

like to offer my observations about why Pruitt is the ideal leader for an agency that under the current 

administration has flagrantly forced an activist agenda on states. • [Donald R. van o.r Vaart, "Scott Pruitt'' Th•Idcat 

Nominee To l..cl!d The EPA; ... l.f~mi'Jlt\,{U.ffl.IJ]C. 12./15/16) 

VanDer Vaart Wrote That Scott Pruitt Is "Committed To Clean Air And Clean Water" 

And Will Restore The EPA To Its "Mission Of Enforcing Environmental Laws Written 

By Congress." "Like President-elect Donald Trump, Pruitt is committed to clean air and clean 

water, and to restoring EPA to its original mission of enforcing the environmental Jaws written by 

Congress . ., (Donnhl R. Vnn DerVuarl, "Scott Pruitt Is The Ideal Nominee To Lead The EPA." .Ma.J·ui'l!l.flln:/Ult. 12/15/16) 

VanDer Vaart Explained That Scott Pruitt Has "Laid Out A View That Human Activities 

Do Impact Climate," And That We Should Have A Healthy Debate About The 

Government's Proper Role In Addressing The Problem. "He has laid out a view that human 

activities do impact the climate, and we should be encouraging a healthy debate over the 

government's proper role in addressing them rather than trying to shut down the discussion." (Donald R. 

Van DcrVnart. "Scott Pruitt Is. 'Itt!! ldc:al NomillCf! To Lead The BPA," ~.£U,'it(.(t, IZ/15/16) 

Alexie Kindrick, President Of Oklahoma Water Environment Association 

Alexie Kindrick Said The Oklahoma Water Environment Association Is "Proud" That 

Pruitt Was Nominated. "Alexie Kindrick, president of the state chapter ofWater Environment 

Association, said she hopes EPA will continue working to protect human health and the environment. 

'The Oklahoma Water Environment Association is proud that an Oklahoman has been appointed as the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under President-elect Donald Trump's 

WliJk. 

administration,' 12/9/16) she said in an email" (JanelleStec'kle:ln, "Pruitt's EPA Posting Ignites Criticism. And Some Proi.o;e,~ ~ 

Kindrick Is President Of The Oklahoma Water Environment Association. C"Cont•d u.: Oklahoma Wnt;;:rEnvlronme~, Aa:e3sed 1'2./10/16) 

Ed Fite, Vice President for Scenic Rivers and Water Quality of the Grwtd 

River Dam Authority 

Ed Fite of the Grand River Dam Authority Wrote Scott Pruitt Has "Always Done Right 

By Our Scenic Rivers." "He has done every constructive thing that he told me he would do. 

Furthermore, for the first time ever, be bas gotten the State of Arkansas, which happens to have 

portions of the streams we've designated as 'scenic rivers' originating in and flowing through their 

state, to agree to Oklahoma's Scenic Rivers Phosphorus Standard-an incredible environmental 
31 

accomplishment, the impact of which cannot be understated. Instead of engaging in years of interstate litigation, he did this by negotiating an agreement with Arkansas Attorney General Dustin 

McDaniel, a practical and economical approach that will yield enormous environmental benefits." (Ed 

Fite, .. A Firsthand Prospective From A Man tn 'nlc Middle! Pruitt Nomination~ Weltame,"_'v~«l'-lrWqJk, t/12/17) 

• Ed Fite Also Said That His View Is That "Scott Pruitt is one who is committed to finding a 

balance that protects and preserves our environment while at the same time affords an 

opportunity for a robust economy to exist. Achievement of one doesn't have to be exclusive of 

the other." (Ed FitcJ • A Plrathtmd Prospective From A Man'lh The Middle: l"ruitt Nomination i.s Wclcome. "J.-'Wua.WaU;, l/lZ/17) 
32 

MATTHEW G. BEVIN 

Go\'UMMI 

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT CABINET 

The Honorable I ohn BaJTliSSO 

300 SOWI:R BoULEVAAD 

FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY 4060 I 

TELEMIDNE: S0l·564·33S0 

Ttl£FAX: 502·564·7484 

January 17,2017 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, District of Columbia 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

513 Hart Senate Office Building 

W ashinglon, District of Columbia 205 I 0 

Dear Chairman BaJTliSSO and Ranking Member Carper: 

CHARLES G. SNAVELY 

SICN:TNt'f 

R. BRUCE SCOTT lltPI.n"rSI.am'.loR.'f 

As the Secretary of the Energy and Environment Cabinet for the Commonwealth of 

Kentucky, I am offering support for the appoinbnent of Attorney General of Oklahoma E. Scott 

Pruitt to tile position of Administrator of the Environmental Protmion Agency (EPA). As you 

are well aware, the EPA led by the Administrator is a powerful regulatory agency that can 

impact the landscapes of energy, environment, and the everyday lives of Americans. The 

Administrator must evaluate these impacts for all citizens of the United States and not limit the 

evaluations to select interest groups to promote their ideologies. 

It is our opinion formed from past actions that Attorney General Pruitt will offer a 

pragmatic, reasonable approach to environmental protection through appropriate regulatory 

development. Mr. Pruitt's positions on the Water of the United States (WOTUS) and the 

Clean Power Plan (CPP) are aligned with the Commonwealth's desire for "cooperative 

federalism." Mr. Pruitt's recognition of the states' abilities to carry out the obligations of the 

Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act is also a shared understanding. During the previous 

administration, EPA ignored many states' concerns and comments regarding WOTUS and 

CPP. Ultimately, states will carry the overwhelming burden of implementing and enforcing 

EPA regulations. The expertise of state officials should not be ignored and substituted with 

the opinions of third party interest groups. As a state Attorney General, Mr. Pruitt recognizes 

the cn'tical role of state environmental agenCies. 

KcntuckyUnbridletJSriri«.com An EquDI CJwonunity EmployL-r M F D 
33 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

January 17, 20 17 

Page Two 

Another area of agreement with Mr. Pruitt is the consideration of the devastating 

economic impacts from recent EPA rulemaking. It is our opinion that the EPA has been allowed 

to ignore the balance between costs and benefits for the past eight years. When promulgating the 

new source performance standards (NSPS) to regulate greenhouse gases from electric generating 

units, EPA admitted that the proposed rule was expected" ... to have no, or negligible, costs or 

monetized benefits associated with il."1 I am certain and confident that Attorney General Pruitt 

will not propose such regulatory actions that fail to account for the costs and identify any 

assO<:iated benefits. 

In closing, I request that you consider this letter of support for Attorney General Scott 

Pruitt and confirm his nomination as the Administrator ofEPA. If you have specific questions to 

this leuc:r of support, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. 

Sincerely, 

~*i1 Regulatory Impact Anal)l!lis for lhe Proposed Standards of Perfonnance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New 

Stationary Sourtes: Elec:1ric Utility Generating Units (EPA-452iRI2-00I, Marett 2012}. 
34 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Welcome to the Committee, Mr. Pruitt. As we discussed when 

you and I met, the oceans off of our Ocean State are warming due 

to fossil fuel-driven climate change. It is crashing our fisheries like 

lobster and winter flounder, and making earning a living harder 

for our fishermen. I see nothing in your career to give those fishermen any confidence that you will care one bit for their well being, 

and not just the well being of the fossil fuel industry. 

In a process that you could replicate in an Oklahoma high school 

science lab, excess carbon dioxide from fossil fuel emissions is turning our seas more acid. Rhode Island shell fishermen and shell fish 

growers are concerned. In my colleague Senator Merkley’s State, 

they have already had oysters spat wiped out for businesses by 

acidified waters. I see nothing in your career that you would care 

at all about our Rhode Island shell fishermen. 

In Rhode Island we have bad air days, and because of EPA’s 

work there are fewer and fewer. A bad air day is a day when people driving into work hear on the radio that ozone from out-of-State 

smoke stacks has made the air in Rhode Island dangerous and that 

infants and the elderly and people with breathing difficulties 

should stay home on an otherwise beautiful day. Because those 

smoke stacks are out of State, we need EPA to protect us, and I 

see nothing in your record that would give a mom taking her child 

to the hospital for an asthma attack any comfort that you would 

take the slightest interest in her. 

And your passion for devolving power down to States doesn’t help 

us because our State regulators can’t do anything about any of 

those problems; they all come from out-of-State sources. In this respect we are very like Delaware. 

One of the things I would like to ask you about here is the connection between you and some of these fossil fuel companies. These 

are some of the companies that have supported you. These are 

some of the political organizations that you have raised money for. 

You have raised money for them for Pruitt for Attorney General, 

correct? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, sir. I had a campaign committee for that, yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And Devon Energy, Koch Industries, 

ExxonMobil have all maxed out to that account. 

Mr. PRUITT. I am not aware if they maxed out or not, Senator, 

but I am sure they have given to that committee. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Oklahoma Strong PAC is your leadership 

pack? 

Mr. PRUITT. It was, yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It was? And similarly, they gave money; 

they maxed out to that organization as well, which you controlled? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am unsure about that, Senator. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. But they contributed to it. 

Mr. PRUITT. I am even unsure about that as well. I haven’t 

looked at that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You closed your super PAC, Liberty 2.0, 

but that took fossil fuel contributions as well, correct? 

Mr. PRUITT. That particular entity has been closed, yes. 
35 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Now, you helped to raise money for the 

Republican Attorney Generals Association. While you were a member of its executive committee, they received $530,000 from Koch 

Industries, $350,000 from Murray Energy, $160,000 from 

ExxonMobil, and $125,000 from Devon Energy, the company whose 

letter you transposed onto your letterhead and sent as an Oklahoma Attorney General document. 

Did you solicit, in your role at the Republican Attorney Generals 

Association, any of that funding? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am unable to confirm if they gave those numbers, 

Senator, those amounts. There were several—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Did you solicit funding from them in your 

role at the Republican Attorney Generals Association? 

Mr. PRUITT. I attended fundraising events as an Attorney General, along with other attorneys general with respect to the RAGA. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And did you solicit? Did you ask them for 

money for RAGA? 

Mr. PRUITT. As I indicated, I attended fundraising events with 

respect to this. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But that is different. Attending fundraising is one thing. Asking them is my question. Did you ask them 

for money? 

Mr. PRUITT. Specifically, you would have to ask about certain entities. I don’t know. You have an entire list. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Those are the entities: Koch Industries, 

Murray Energy, ExxonMobil, Devon Energy. 

Mr. PRUITT. I did not ask of Koch or—what were the other ones? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Murray Energy, ExxonMobil, Devon Energy. 

Mr. PRUITT. I have not asked them for money on behalf of RAGA. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You said to the Chairman that there is 

nothing that might place you in a conflict of interest that you have 

not disclosed. Yet, you founded the Rule of Law Defense Fund, 

which is a dark money operation that supports the Republican Attorney Generals Association, and you have not disclosed any of 

your solicitations for that entity nor have you disclosed what 

money was raised pursuant to those solicitations. This is an organization that appears to have a million dollar a year budget, so very 

substantial funds have been solicited. I believe you were its chairman. Will you disclose your role in soliciting money and in receiving money for the Rule of Law Defense Fund pursuant to your solicitations? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, a point of clarification. I actually did not 

start nor initiate the Rule of Law Defense Fund. That is something 

I did not do. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You led it? 

Mr. PRUITT. I have been an officer of that organization for 2016. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK, an officer of it. 

Mr. PRUITT. There is an executive staff, fundraisers that actually 

carry out the functions of that organization. There are many attorneys general that serve on that board. It is not a decision of one; 

it is a decision of those that are empowered to make those decisions. 
36 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But you haven’t told us anything about 

that. You haven’t told us—— 

Mr. PRUITT. I have no access—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE [continuing]. Who you asked money 

from—— 

Mr. PRUITT. That is a file that—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE [continuing]. You haven’t told us what they 

gave, if you asked them. It is a complete black hole into which at 

least a million dollars goes, and based on your record of fundraising it appears that a great deal of your fundraising comes from 

these organizations who are in the energy sector and devoted to 

fighting climate change. 

Mr. PRUITT. Some of whom I have actually sued, as well, Senator. But with respect to the Rule of Law—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Name one you have sued up there. 

Mr. PRUITT. ExxonMobil. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Really? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. My time has expired. We will pursue this 

in further questions. 

Mr. PRUITT. We are involved in, as I indicated, I think, in your 

office, we are involved in, and Senator Inhofe mentioned it in his 

comments, a situation in Oklahoma where multiple oil and gas 

companies, ConocoPhillips and others, have defrauded the State in 

clean up with respect to spills that have occurred, and 

ExxonMobil—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. That is a qui tam fraud case; it has nothing to do with the environment. 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator,—— 

Senator BARRASSO. I thought you were going to resolve that for 

the second round. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I am sorry, he was coming back to me, so 

I was responding. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Before heading to Senator Capito, there are two articles I will be 

introducing into the record. One from the Wall Street Journal in 

September, headlined ‘‘Hillary Clinton Raises More Than Donald 

Trump from Oil Industry.’’ The second article that I will be introducing for the record is from Politico from December 27th, by 

Elana Schor, who quotes America Rising Executive Director Brian 

Rogers: ‘‘This is a partisan fishing expedition by six liberal Democrats who, combined, have taken more than $1.2 million from far 

left environmentalist groups dead set against any reforms to an 

out-of-control EPA.’’ 

[The referenced information follows:] 
37 

Oil Industry Contributions 

If Attorney General Scott Pruitt acceptance of oil and gas 

contributions is an issue, I hope the same standard was applied to 

Hillary Clinton. 

According to a September 6, 2016 Wall Street Journal article, oil and 

gas donors contributed roughly twice as much to support Mrs. 

Clinton's campaign as President-Elect Donald Trump's. 

I ask unanimous consent to enter the Wall Street Journal Article into 

the record. 
38 

The Wall Street Journal 

Hillary Clinton Raises More Than 

Donald Trump From Oil Industry 

Republican's backers say longtime party stalwarts will come around by 

Election Day 

By AMY HARDER and BRODY MULLINS 

Updated Sept. 6, 2016 

WASHINGTON-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has raised significantly 

more money than Donald Trump in the heart of the Republican fundraising territory-the oil and 

gas industry. 

Individuals who work for oil and natural-gas companies donated $149,000 to Mr. Tntmp's GOP 

campaign through July 30, the end of the most recent fundraising period, compared with 

$525,000 to Mrs. Clinton. 

The industry's executives and employees also have donated $470,000 to a fundraising account 

Mr. Trump established with the Republican National Committee, compared with $650,000 to a 

similar account Mrs. Clinton set up with the Democrats, according to new calculations provided 

to The Wall Street Journal by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. 

Taken together, oil and gas donors have contributed roughly twice as much to support Mrs. 

Clinton's campaign as Mr. Trump's. Election rules bar corporations from giving directly to 

candidates, but donations ti·om an industry's employees can provide a reflection of where it 

stands. 

At Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest publicly traded oil company, employees have made 

175 donations to Mrs. Clinton's campaign, totaling roughly $18,000, while Mr. Trump's 

campaign has received just one donation from an Exxon employee. At the American Petroleum 

Institute, the oil industry's Washington lobbying group, no one has contributed to Mr. Trump. 

(These figures include donations of$200 or more.) 

Mr. Trump's supporters noted that Mr. Trump paid for much of his Republican primary 

campaign out of his own pocket, and they said that he is picking up tl1e pace of his fundraising. 

"He will raise as much from the oil and gas industry as he will any other business sector, if not 

more," said Roy Bailey, chief executive of Giuliani Deason Capital Interests LLC, and Texas 

finance co-chaim1an for Mr. Trump's campaign. 

Still, Mr. Tnnnp's fundraising deficit among oil and gas donors is notable, because the industry 

has for decades been one of the GOP's biggest backers. Since 1989, the industry has pumped 

$500 million into U.S. elections, with 60% of that going to the Republican Pa1ty and its 

candidates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. 
39 

In 2012, oil and gas executives donaled $19.3 million through various accounts to help 

Republican candidate Mitt Romney, making the industry Mr. Romney's sixth-largest money 

source. 

So far in the 2016 election, oil and gas executives and employees have directed 90% of their $71 

million in campaign donations to Republicans, though only a small amount of that is going to 

Mr. Tnm1p. 

In interviews with nearly a dozen energy-sector officials, many said privately they won·y about 

some of Mr. Trump's positions and are concerned that he might not understand their industry. 

"I think most of us would agree that--nothing against either candidate-but we all wish there 

were better candidates," said Scott Sheffield, CEO of Pioneer Nantral Resources, at the Center 

for Strategic and International Studies in July. 

Mr. Trump, for example, told a Colorado television station several weeks ago that "if a 

municipality or state wants to ban fl-acking, I can understand it," referring to hydraulic fracturing. 

That position is anathema to energy-industry leaders. 

One of Mr. Trump's top energy advisers said that he had been confused. "Donald Tmmp did not 

understand that concept at the time, in my opinion," said Hal'old Hamm, CEO of Continental 

Resources Inc., in an interview with the Joumal. 

Mr. Trump also has said he doesn't support giving states more control over federal lands within 

their borders, a policy favored by the industry as a way to promote fossil-fuel development. 

The Houston Chronicle, a newspaper often sensitive to industry interests, endorsed Mrs. Clinton 

in July. "These are unscttiing times that require a steady hand: That's not Donald Trump," read 

the endorsement, the second time in 44 years the paper backed a Democrat for president. 

Mr. Hamm, charged ·with raising money for Mr. Trump from energy executives, conceded that 

some would support Mrs. Clinton. "Some will give Democratic probably, which historically 

have done. so," Mr. Hamm said. But he promised that by the end of the campaign, "The1·e's going 

to be a lot of money put into this campaign from our oil and gas industry." 

Mr. Trump's. suppmt from oil and gas donors ranks behind that of some Republicans who folded 

their campaigns months ago. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas raised $1.3 million, while fonner Florida 

Gov. Jeb Bush drew $513,000, and Flotida Sen. Marco Rubio cotlected nearly $400,000, records 

show. 

Mr. Tmmp's total also doesn't greatly exceed that of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Mrs. 

Clinton's Democratic rival, who vowed on the campaign trail to ban oil and natural-gas 

production: Mr. Sanders raised $115,000 from the industry to Mr. Trump's $149,000. 
40 

ENVIROMENTAL ORG DONATIONS TO EPW DEMOCRATS 

Some of my Democratic colleagues have expressed concerns over 

Attorney General Pruitt's links to the energy industry, 

and his role as director of the Rule of Law Defense Fund. 

Six Democrats 1 on the EPW committee have asked in a letter for the 

names of the Rule of Law Defense Fund's donors 

and other information relating to AG Pruitt's status as a director. 

J have here in my hand a Politico article dated December 27, 2016. 

I would like to draw the committee's attention to a quote from America 

Rising Executive Director Brian Rogers, 

in which he points to this letter as proof of environmental groups 

"dictating" to Senate Democrats. 

Brian Rogers is quoted as saying, 

"This is a partisan fishing expedition by six liberal 

Democrats who combined have taken more than $1.2 

million from far left environmentalist groups deadset against any reforms to an out of control EPA. " 

I ask unanimous consent to include this article in the record. 

• Whitehouse, Merkley, Booker, Markey, Cardin, and Sanders 
41 

Democrats press EPA pick Pruitt on energy sector ties- POLITICO Page 1 of 4 

POLITICO 

Democrats press EPA pick Pruitt on energy sector ties 

A nonprofit he helps lead accepted $175,000 from a central arm of the Koch 

brothers' network. 

By ELANASCHOR 112/27/16 06:15PM EST 

Reports have emerged of Scott Pruitt's use of Industry talking points in cr1ticizing the Obama 

admlnistratlon's environmental rules. I AP Photo 

Senate Democrats are raising concerns about the energy industry ties of Scott Pruitt, Donald 

Trump's pick to helm the Environmental Protection Agency, pointing to his leading role at a 

nonprofit group that took money from a central arm of the Koch brothers' network. 

Six Democrats on the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee wrote to Pruitt on 

Tuesday asking for the names of donors, meeting information, internal emails and other 

details related to his director status at the nonprofit, called the Rule of Law Defense Fund. 

Formed as an offshoot of the Republican Attorneys General Association, the Defense Fund is 

organized under a section of the tax code that allows it to keep donors secret - but it 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/congress-democrats-epa-pruitt-232989 1/18/2017 
42 

Democrats press EPA pick Pruitt on energy sector ties- POLITICO Page 2 of4 

received $175,000 in 2014 from Freedom Partners, which coordinates the Kochs' political 

activities. 

That contribution, combined with past reports about Pruitt's use of industry talking points 

in criticism of Obama administration environmental rules, is rousing suspicion among 

Democrats. In the letter obtained by POLITICO, the six senators said Pruitt's work with the 

Defense Fund is a "troubling" sign that the Oklahoma attorney general is too close to the 

fossil-fuel companies he would regulate as chief of Trump's EPA. 

The Defense Fund took in $855,000 in 2014 and $953,000 last year, according to IRS records. 

Five Republican state attorneys general joined Pruitt as unpaid directors: Patrick Morrisey 

of West Virginia, Pam Bondi of Florida, Sean Reyes of Utah, Derek Schmidt of Kansas and 

Alan Wilson of South Carolina. Bondi, whose political committee received a controversial 

$25,000 donation from Trump's foundation in 2013, is a member of the president-elect's 

transition team. 

Defense Fund spokesman Jordan Russell said by email that the group "facilitates study and 

discussion among attorneys general of a wide range of policy issues, including health care, 

immigration, federalism, and many other matters affecting states and their citizens." 

Trump's transition team did not respond to a request for comment. 

-

PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION 

Tn1mp rewards big donors with jobs and access 

By ISAAC ARNSD0RF 

America Rising Executive Director Brian Rogers, whose conservative group has launched a 

pro-Pruitt campaign targeting red-state Democrats, slammed the letter as a sign of green 

groups dictating to Democratic senators. 

"This is a partisan fishing expedition by six liberal Democrats who combined have taken 

more than $1.2 million from far-left environmentalist groups dead-set against any reforms 

to an out of control EPA," Rogers said in a statement. 

Democrats' interest in playing up Pruitt's involvement with the group- part of a broader 

push to turn moderate senators against his confirmation - stems from a New York Times 

investigation in 2014 that found Pruitt borrowing language almost word-for-word from oil 

and gas company Devon Energy in a letter that accused EPA of inflating emissions. 

"The confirmation process, starting with your responses to committee questions before your 

hearing, is an opportunity for you to dispel the notion that the advocacy you have 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/congress-democrats-epa-pruitt-232989 1/18/2017 
43 

Democrats press EPA pick Pruitt on energy sector ties- POLITICO Page 3 of4 

undertaken on environmental issues as Attorney General of Oklahoma has been directed by 

and for the benefit of the energy industry," the Democrats wrote to Pruitt. 

The letter was signed by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, 

Cory Booker of New Jersey, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Ben Cardin of Maryland and Bernie 

Sanders (1-Vt.), who caucuses with Democrats. The environment panel's incoming top 

Democrat, Delaware Sen. Tom Carper, did not sign on, nor did Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand 

(D-N.Y.) or Sens.-elect Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), who will join 

the committee next year. 

ANANCE 

Tromp's new economic math 

By BEN WHITE 

Dan Kunsman, chief of staff to Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who will assume the 

environment panel gavel in the new Congress, said committee policy allows senators to 

question nominees through the chairman rather than on their own. 

"Further, the authority to require a nominee to respond to questions following a hearing 

also rests with the Chairman. That is why members submit their questions to the Chairman 

to be sent under his or her signature to the nominee," Kunsman said by email. 'This was the 

precedent for President Obama' s EPA nominees, and will be followed again." 

The Defense Fund's current president is Samantha Dravis, a former counsel at Freedom 

Partners and White House aide during the George W. Bush administration who also serves 

as general counsel at RAGA. Other senior employees as of last year were RAGA Executive 

Director Scott Will; RAGA Chief Financial Officer Lee Russell; and veteran Alabama 

operative Jessica Garrison, a former aide to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AJa.), Trump's attorney 

general in waiting, as well as Bill Pryor, a federal appeals court judge on Trump's Supreme 

Court short list. 

Defense Fund counsel Charlie Spies, a longtime GOP election lawyer, noted that the 

Democratic letter acknowledges the right of nonprofits to shield their donors' identities and 

said the group would "maintain its longstanding policy of maintaining donor 

confidentiality. • 

"It is unfortunate that certain Democrat Senators appear willing to trample First 

Amendment rights in order to score cheap political points," Spies said in a statement. 

http://www. politico. com/story 120 16/12/congress-democrats-epa-pruitt-232 989 1118/2017 
44 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Attorney General Pruitt, for being here, for your 

willingness to throw your hat in the ring to serve. I would like to 

quote the Ranking Member when he says it is hard work, because 

it is. The EPA is hard work. 

But one of the things you said really struck me, and I believe 

that the rule of law does matter, and I am heartened by your passion for that. 

The regulatory overreach of the EPA has contributed to economic 

devastation in my State of West Virginia and my region. Data from 

the Mine Safety and Health Administration shows that 60,000 coal 

jobs have been lost between 2011 and 2016. Thousands of these 

were in West Virginia. We are in a desperate situation in our State 

right now because of this. 

We had a field hearing in Beckley, West Virginia, where our 

WVU economist, John Deskins, said that the coal industry downturn had resulted in six of our southern West Virginia counties 

being in a great depression. 

For the past 8 years the EPA has given no indication at all that 

it cares about the economic impact of its policies, even though Congress has said very clearly in the Clean Air Act and other environmental statutes that we expect jobs and economic factors to be 

taken into account. That is part of the law. In October a Federal 

court held that the EPA had failed to evaluate the job impacts of 

the EPA Clean Air Act as required by 321(a) of that Act and ordered the EPA to submit a schedule for conducting the required 

jobs analysis. 

Incredibly, the EPA told the court it would take 2 years—this 

was just in the last several weeks—it would take 2 years just to 

come up with a plan on how to do the analysis, which, in my view, 

if that is part of the law that EPA is supposed to be following, they 

should already have the protocols set up to do an effective and accurate job analysis. 

So the court responded like this: ‘‘This response is wholly inefficient, unacceptable, and unnecessary. It evidences the continued 

hostility on the part of the EPA to the acceptance of the mission 

established by Congress.’’ 

So I would like to ask you to commit to me to ensure that the 

EPA will follow the law it is charged with implementing and do 

those ongoing evaluation of job losses and economic shifts due to 

the requirements of the Act as required by the law. 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, as you indicated, I really believe that it is 

important that rule of law is adhered to because it inspires confidence in those that are regulated. I think oftentimes those that 

are regulated don’t know what is expected of them. They look at 

a statute, they see the requirements of the statute, and then those 

that are regulating act in a way that is not consistent with that 

framework, so they don’t know what is expected of them, and that 

causes uncertainty and I think paralysis to a certain degree. So 

rule of law is something that we should take seriously. It has been 

at the heart of the litigation that we have initiated as a State. 

A lot of times these cases—as we were talking earlier with Senator Carper—there is a policy or a political kind of attention that 
45 

is drawn to it but really is about process and rule of law and making sure that the framework that this body, Congress, has established is respected and enforced. So I appreciate your comments. 

Senator CAPITO. Well, in looking for the balance, we need to have 

at least a correct analysis of what the economic implications are of 

regulations. 

It is so important, critically important that we enforce our environmental laws and to keep our air clean and get it cleaner and 

protect our waters. 

In January 2014 a storage tank in Charleston, West Virginia, 

was corrupted and went into the river. It was right by the water 

flow of the major water source in my community. Three hundred 

thousand people had to do without water for several weeks. It 

caused a lot of angst economically to small businesses. Imagine a 

restaurant not being able to use water or you can’t wash your 

clothes. You couldn’t do anything with the water. 

But also, and I share this concern, concern about the health and 

the long-range implications of what has happened. Several people, 

multiple individuals and Freedom Industries have pled guilty to 

environmental crimes in Federal court, which I am very pleased 

about. 

So let’s talk about TSCA, because in TSCA I was able to support 

a provision that would say that if you are storing in close proximity 

to drinking water, you have to take that into consideration when 

you are reviewing potentially hazardous chemicals. 

Can we count on you to work with this Committee to make sure 

that this bipartisan TSCA reform bill is fully implemented, and efficiently and fully? 

Mr. PRUITT. Absolutely, Senator. In fact, I would commend the 

work of this Committee, with Senator Inhofe’s leadership, in passing that update to the TSCA legislation. For the first time in history, as you know, the EPA has the ability to order testing to address chemicals that are going to be entered into the stream of 

commerce, and that is a very big substantive change that exists. 

There are many deadlines—— 

Senator CAPITO. And I would also add that in TSCA—excuse me 

just a minute because I am running out of time. In TSCA we actually expanded the EPA’s reach. So when you are asked if you are 

wanting to get rid of the EPA or it doesn’t have a value, I voted 

to expand that reach of EPA to make sure that I have clean water 

and that if a spill happens in a community around this country, 

what has happened in Flint, Michigan, doesn’t have the far reaching implications that it does. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. PRUITT. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pruitt, welcome to the Committee. Thank you for your willingness to serve our country. 

I want to talk about the Chesapeake Bay Program. We talked 

about that in my office. I explained to you, and I will do it very 

quickly, that this is a program that was developed at the State 

level with the States that are in the watershed, including Delaware, with my colleague, Senator Carper. It is a State that the 
46 

locals have determined how it is best to reach their pollution targets in order to help preserve the Chesapeake Bay. It is the largest 

estuary in the northern hemisphere. It is critically important; it is 

complicated. It doesn’t flush itself, as many bodies of water do; it 

has a reduction of oyster crops. There are so many problems. All 

the stakeholders have gotten together; they worked out a plan. The 

Federal Government is part of that plan. It is enforced through the 

TMDL program, and it has been agreed to by the local governments. 

It was challenged, the TMDLs, including you joined that lawsuit. 

The Supreme Court refused to overturn the Court of Appeals supporting the use of the TMDLs. 

If you are confirmed, will you support the Federal role in the 

Chesapeake Bay Program as envisioned by the partners and stakeholders, enforcing the TMDLs, if necessary? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, Senator. And as I indicated in your office, the 

time that we had together, I really commend the six States that 

joined together to address the Chesapeake Bay and to try to set 

levels for both point source and non-point source type of discharge 

into the Chesapeake Bay. There were some concerns about the 

precedent, the role that EPA was playing initially, but through 

that litigation the EPA has acknowledged that their role is more 

informational. And there was concern in Oklahoma about the Mississippi River Basin and the precedent that was set in that matter, 

and that is what spawned our litigation. 

But I really want to emphasize to you that process represents 

what should occur, for States to join together and enter into an 

agreement to address water quality issues and then involve the 

EPA to serve the role it is supposed to serve is something that 

should be commended and celebrated. And as it relates to enforcing 

that TMDL, I can commit to you that in fact I will do so. 

Senator CARDIN. Part of the Federal Government’s partnership is 

to provide resources. There are several programs that fund initiatives within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed; probably the largest 

is the State Revolving Funds dealing with wastewater. Will you 

support the Federal Government’s partnership through funding 

these programs that are critically important to make the advancements in the Chesapeake Bay watershed? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, Senator. I believe that the grant making role 

of the EPA, as we talked about in your office, is very important to 

States across this country, whether it is the revolving funds or the 

WIFIA portions of our statutes. But grant making, in general, is 

very important, and I will commit to you in that regard that I 

would do so with respect to the Chesapeake Bay. 

Senator CARDIN. I want to continue on clean water for one moment. We have had significant problems with safe drinking water 

and clean water. Let me ask you a preliminary question. Do you 

believe there is any safe level of lead that can be taken into the 

human body, particularly a young person? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, that is something I have not reviewed nor 

know about. I would be very concerned about any level of lead 

going into the drinking water or obviously human consumption, but 

I have not looked at the scientific research on that. 
47 

Senator CARDIN. The Clean Water Act provides for Federal guidance as to acceptable clean water. It is enforced by the States. So 

my question to you in regards to clean water is what steps will you 

take to make sure that our children are safe. We saw in Flint, 

Michigan, a tragedy occur. Where do you think the Federal Government needs to strengthen its regulatory roles to make sure that our 

children are safe from lead? 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, I think with Flint, Michigan, it is an example 

of delay in response by the EPA. There should have been more 

done on corrosion control programs with the Flint, Michigan, system. As you know, under the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act if there is an emergency situation the EPA can enter 

an emergency order to address those kinds of concerns. I think 

there should have been a more fast response, a more rapid response to Flint, Michigan. 

I think with respect to water quality it is infrastructure. Water 

infrastructure is important. And as you indicated the States play 

a very vital role in that process, and there needs to be more cooperation between the EPA and the States to ensure water quality 

is protected. 

Senator CARDIN. Just so I understand, you have participated in 

several lawsuits against the EPA’s involvement, saying that the 

locals should have the responsibility. If you are confirmed, will you 

support Federal enforcement, particularly in multi-State issues, 

where the only way we can get enforcement is at the Federal level? 

Mr. PRUITT. I believe that is a vital role of the EPA. As I indicated in your office, with air quality, water quality, issues that 

cross State line, there is an enforcement mechanism that is important and would seek to do so if confirmed as EPA Administrator. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Pruitt, for being here today, but also for accepting the nomination. It is a service and a sacrifice not just for 

you, but for your family, as well, to step forward to serve this country. So thank you, sir, for being willing to do that. 

Mr. PRUITT. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator FISCHER. For your testimony, I do thank you, and I 

would like to, first of all, let you know that Nebraskans have been 

really affected by the EPA in many instances, and I will give you 

some examples of that. 

Nebraska’s public power utilities are grappling with how they 

could ever comply with the EPA’s carbon emission reduction mandates. The city of Omaha is struggling with the Agency’s expensive 

CSO mandate and drinking water affordability. Nebraska farmers 

are waiting on new crop technology products that are stuck in a 

broken regulatory process. Our biofuel investors and producers are 

desperate for certainty under the RFS. Homebuilders, transportation stakeholders, and local county officials are concerned about 

the jurisdictional expansion to control our State’s water resources. 

Communities and small business owners fear that the EPA’s ozone 

mandate will stunt potential economic development and growth in 

our State. As a result of the activist role the EPA has played for 
48 

the past 8 years, families are concerned about the futures of their 

livelihood. 

We all want clean air, and we all want clean water. That is one 

point that I know each and every person here agrees on. But with 

the EPA’s tremendous impact on Americans’ lives each and every 

day, it is important that the Agency be open, transparent, and answerable for its actions. Given these concerns, along with the many 

others that have been and will continue to be discussed today, 

what steps will you take as the EPA Administrator to provide relief 

for American families that are faced truly with an onslaught of 

EPA rules? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, you mentioned open, transparent rulemaking. There are concerns that have been expressed recently with 

respect to regulation through litigation, where groups initiate litigation against the EPA and the U.S. Government, and set environmental policy through something called a sue and settle process. I 

think this body, as well as the U.S. House, has looked at those 

kinds of issues. And when we talk about open transparency, there 

is a reason why the Administrative Procedures Act exists. It is intended to provide notice to those that are going to be impacted with 

rules to give them the opportunity to offer comment and to inform 

the regulators on the impact of those rules. And then it is the obligation of the regulator to take those things into consideration in finalizing rules; otherwise they act in an arbitrary and capricious 

way. 

So it is very important that that process be adhered to, to give 

voice to all Americans in balancing the environmental objectives we 

have, but also the economic harm that results. And the Supreme 

Court has spoken about that rather consistently of late, and I 

would seek to lead the EPA in such a way to ensure that openness 

and transparency. 

Senator FISCHER. You know, a couple weeks ago I held a very 

good conversation about our shared vision for the EPA, to bring 

common sense and accountability back to that Agency, and I think 

that is going to go a long way in restoring confidence in the Agency 

by the American people. 

One issue we did discuss was the Renewable Fuel Standard and 

its importance to my home State of Nebraska. We are the largest 

ethanol producer west of the Missouri River. Our neighbors to the 

east, Senator Ernst’s home State, they do lead the Nation in ethanol production. So honoring the congressionally mandated 

timelines and the volume requirements that are critical from an investment point of view and also from a planning perspective, I 

think that this is especially relevant, and especially during the current farm crisis that we are seeing and the negative impact on people in agriculture all across this Nation. 

In our meeting you did express your commitment to me to honor 

the law and you echoed President-elect Trump’s support for the 

statute itself and a strong RVO. For the record, can you please 

once again express your commitment to uphold the congressional 

intent of the RFS? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, Senator, and you said it well, to honor the intent and the expression of the Renewable Fuel Standard statute is 

very, very important. It is not the job of the Administrator of the 
49 

EPA to do anything other than administer the program according 

to the intent of Congress, and I commit to you to do so. 

Senator FISCHER. And you also—— 

Mr. PRUITT. And I would say this. The waivers that routinely are 

offered by the Administrator, recently another waiver was offered, 

it should be used judiciously. There is a reason why Congress put 

in that statute those statutory objectives. The market has changed 

since 2005, and the waiver authority that has been provided by 

this body is important, but that waiver authority should be used 

judiciously, and the Act should be complied with and enforced consistent with the will of Congress. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, sir. And I would ask that you also 

tell us publicly what you told us, that you will honor the timelines 

on the volume levels that are mandated by Congress. 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, Senator. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you very much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Fischer. 

Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Over a number of years information started pouring into EPA 

that the estimate of the amount of fugitive methane escaping in 

gas and oil drilling had been deeply underestimated. In 2011 the 

EPA put out its best estimates based on the information that was 

being presented. And this is relevant because methane is a global 

warming gas, more potent than CO2. Gas companies didn’t like this because, well, it presented a vision 

of natural gas being more damaging environmentally than folks 

had previously understood. Devon Energy is one of the groups that 

sought to cast doubt on this scientific information, and they came 

to you to be their spokesperson, and they asked will you be our 

mouthpiece in casting doubt and send a letter we have drafted to 

the EPA, and you sent that letter. 

And I just want to ask, first, are you aware that methane is approximately 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a global 

warming gas? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am, Senator. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Mr. PRUITT. I think the impact on human—— 

Senator MERKLEY. That is the answer. Yes. Thank you. It is a 

yes or no question. 

And on a 1 to 10 scale, how concerned are you about the impacts 

of fugitive methane in driving global warming? 

Mr. PRUITT. Methane, as you indicated—— 

Senator MERKLEY. One to 10 scale. Highly, 10, very concerned, 

or 1, not so concerned? 

Mr. PRUITT. The quantities of methane in the atmosphere compared to CO2 is less, but it is far more potent, and it is—— 

Senator MERKLEY. Are you concerned? I am asking about your 

level of concern. 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes. Yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. Highly concerned? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am concerned. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. Do you acknowledge sending this 

letter to the EPA in October 2011? 
50 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, if that is a letter that is on my letterhead 

that was sent to the EPA, yes, with respect to the issue. 

Senator MERKLEY. Do you acknowledge that 97 percent of the 

words in that letter came directly from Devon Energy? 

Mr. PRUITT. I have not looked at the percentage, Senator. 

Senator MERKLEY. The statement that has been analyzed many 

times is that all of the 1,016 words, except for 37 words, were written directly by Devon Energy. 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, that was a step that was taken as Attorney 

General representing the interest of our State. Over 25 percent 

of—— 

Senator MERKLEY. I didn’t ask that question. I was just asking 

if you copied the letter virtually word for word. You have acknowledged that, yes, it is in the record. People can count it. It is correct. 

All right, so a public office is about serving the public. There is 

a public concern over the impact of methane on global warming. 

There is scientific research showing that it is far more devastating 

than anticipated and far more is leaking. But you used your office 

as a direct extension of an oil company rather than a direct extension of the interests of the public health of the people of Oklahoma. 

Do you acknowledge that you presented a private oil company’s position rather than a position developed by the people of Oklahoma? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, with respect, I disagree. The efforts that I 

took as Attorney General were representing the interests of the 

State of Oklahoma. 

Senator MERKLEY. Earlier you said you—— 

Mr. PRUITT. And there was a concern about—— 

Senator MERKLEY. No, no, excuse me. I am asking the questions. 

You said earlier you listen to everyone. In drafting this letter you 

took an oil company’s position and then without consulting people 

who had diverse views about the impact, you sent it off. How can 

you present that as representing the people of Oklahoma when you 

simply only consulted an oil company to push its own point of view 

for its private profit? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, there is an obligation the EPA has to follow 

processes as established by this body. The cost-benefit analysis 

under section 112 is something that they have to engage in. There 

was a concern about the overestimated percentages that the EPA 

put in the record; it was a record-based challenge. That was the expression of the letter to the EPA, and it was representing the interests of an industry in the State of Oklahoma; not a company, an 

industry. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. But my question was what other 

groups—environmental groups or other groups—did you consult so 

that you had that full perspective before representing simply a forprofit oil company using your official office and your official letterhead? 

Mr. PRUITT. I consulted with other environmental officials in 

Oklahoma that regulate that industry and learned from them with 

respect to the concerns about the estimates that were provided by 

the EPA. 

Senator MERKLEY. Can you provide this Committee with information showing who you consulted in representing this letter specifically for Devon Energy? Because the information that is in the 
51 

public realm only shows that they simply sent you a letter, asked 

you to send it, and you sent it without questions. 

Mr. PRUITT. We have seven or so individuals in our office that 

are involved in these kinds of issues, and we will collect the information they have and provide it to this body pursuant to the 

Chairman’s direction. 

Senator MERKLEY. Your staff expanded substantially while you 

were in charge, to 251 staff members. Why do you need an outside 

oil company to draft a letter when you have 250 people working for 

you? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, as I have indicated, that was an effort that 

was protecting the State’s interest in making sure that we made 

the voices of all Oklahomans heard on a very important industry 

to our State. 

Senator MERKLEY. You said all heard, but you only sent it on behalf of a single voice, the oil company. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. I still have some time remaining from my 

questioning. Is there anything you would like to add that you 

haven’t felt you have had a chance in terms of answering fully 

some of the areas of the questioning? 

Mr. PRUITT. I think, Senator, the clarification that the letter that 

was sent to the EPA was not sent on behalf of any one company. 

This was not particular to Devon Energy, not particular to Chesapeake, not particular to other companies in our State; it was particular to an industry. The State of Oklahoma has an oil and gas 

industry that is vibrant to our State, as you might imagine, just 

like many of you have industry in your State. There was concern 

expressed by that industry—many folks in that industry—about 

the overestimating that occurred with that methane rule. That was 

the communication to the EPA. It was a position of the State, not 

the position of any one company. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator Moran. 

Senator MORAN. Chairman, thank you very much. 

General Pruitt, welcome to the Committee. Thank you for your 

public service. I am going to see if I can get through three areas 

in the 5 minutes that I have. 

First of all, WOTUS, Waters of the United States. Despite there 

being an injunction against the enforcement of the WOTUS rule, 

I am told that EPA Region 7, the region in which Kansas is part, 

those regional inspectors have increased their inspection of smaller 

animal feeding operations. Unlike many States, Kansas has a well 

established State permit system for small facilities as well as the 

delegated authority under the Clean Water Act. The EPA—rather 

than cooperating with the State agency, the EPA is engaged in its 

own inspections and its own enforcement on these small facilities, 

often conflicting with State permitting and the enforcement process. 

In these actions the EPA has claimed jurisdiction over features 

like grass waterways, culverts under county roads unconnected to 

the feeding operation and not situated in or near any body of 

water. 
52 

General Pruitt, what would your direction be to the EPA staff, 

to Region 7 and others, in regard to their actions enforcing WOTUS 

while an injunction is in place? 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, Senator, as you indicated, and I do want to acknowledge the same concerns have been expressed by those individuals in Oklahoma in different groups with respect to the 

WOTUS definition that has been offered by the EPA that is subject 

to a 31-State challenge that was consolidated there before the 6th 

Circuit, and as you indicated there has been a stay of enforcement 

against that particular rule. The Supreme Court actually, last Friday, took up a matter of jurisdiction on that case, so that adds 

some complexity to this. 

But I think the role of the EPA, prospectively, is to seek to provide clarity on what the true definition, what the best definition is 

with respect to Waters of the United States. As you know, there 

is much flexibility and discretion there given to the EPA in a series 

of cases that lead up to the Rapanos decision that haven’t provided 

a tremendous amount of clarity. The best thing the EPA can do 

going forward is to reestablish that clarity so that States and individuals know what is expected of them in compliance. 

Senator MORAN. General, thank you. I don’t think I need to remind you, in particular, about the role that States play in clean 

water. But I would take a moment to highlight something that is 

often, I think, forgotten in the regulatory world of water, water 

quality, is the Department of Agriculture, the Natural Resource 

Conservation Service, in which landowners are assisted through 

the Department of Agriculture in improving water quality and 

water quantity in a very partnership oriented local effort that is 

significantly different than the tremendous reach from the EPA in 

Washington, DC, as compared to the local efforts by landowners 

themselves to work with USDA to solve problems. 

Let me move to my second question. It revolves the Flint Hills. 

That is a native grassland in our State. The owners of those grasslands, these are thousands of acres of grass, they burn the prairie 

in the early spring for purposes of regeneration of that grass. It is 

learned from the Indians that lightning used to be the method by 

which that grassland burned. Less so now with the settlement that 

has occurred of our country. And as a result of that annual burning, that is ecologically desirable, there is times in which a city— 

even one of our own, Wichita, for example—is in non-attainment 

under the Clean Air Act. And I raise this issue to you in asking 

that you work, if you are confirmed, with the State of Kansas in 

our local efforts to manage the burning of the national grasslands 

in a way that is advantageous to wildlife habitat, at the same time 

done in a timely fashion, at appropriate times, in appropriate 

amounts, that preserves the air quality; but again not a heavy 

handed approach that one-size solution or a ban fits the circumstance. 

Mr. PRUITT. If confirmed, Senator, I look forward to working with 

you on that issue. 

Senator MORAN. I thank you for that. 

Finally, I want to highlight a small town in Kansas named Pretty Prairie, a typical name or a perfect name for a town in our 

State. Pretty Prairie, Kansas, has a population of about 700 people. 
53 

For several decades, because of the high nitrates in the city’s water 

levels—I didn’t say that very well. Because of high levels of nitrate 

in the city water system, the city has provided free bottled water 

to its citizens. And my question to you is now the EPA is disallowing that practice and requiring the city to spend approximately $2.4 million and raise the rates of our residents of that 

community by $80 a month while the community seemingly is satisfied with the solution of the city providing an alternative to the 

expense of a new water treatment plant. 

I ask this question, again, as an example of where a rigid decision, as compared to a community-based decision, seems to prevail 

at the EPA and would give you an opportunity to confirm to me 

what I hope you would say is that you will work with communities. 

You, as an Oklahoman, and me as a Kansan, and many of the 

members of this Committee represent lots of communities in which 

the population is insufficient to be able to pay for the costs of water 

or sewer treatment. We need financial resources to accomplish 

that, but we also need common sense solutions to the problem. 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, I look forward to working with you on that 

issue as well as the other. There was a saying in the environmental 

space: national standards, neighborhood solutions. And I think it is 

important for the EPA Administrator, those in Washington, as I 

said in my opening statement, to listen and learn from those, from 

you with respect to the needs of your community and your State 

and collaborate with you and the local officials to achieve good outcomes. 

Senator MORAN. I look forward to educating you on behalf of 

Kansans. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Moran. 

Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Good morning, Mr. Pruitt. 

Mr. PRUITT. Good morning, Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. I have a letter that I read that you sent to the 

Committee last year, and you said that the Oklahoma Attorney 

General—you said, ‘‘I am responsible for protecting the welfare of 

Oklahoma citizens.’’ I assume that is still correct, and you believe 

that. 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, Senator. 

Senator BOOKER. And during the past 6 years in pursuit of that, 

if you look at the record of the lawsuits you filed against the EPA, 

you have joined or filed 14 lawsuits against the EPA challenging 

clean air and clean water rules, yes? 

Mr. PRUITT. We have been involved in multiple pieces of litigation, Senator. 

Senator BOOKER. Yes, but I am looking at specifically 14, and 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to put those 14 lawsuits into the 

record, of where you specifically challenged the EPA on air quality. 

And let me just go through some of those. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
Case Name I Subject & Status Oklahoma Involvement I Res

CASES AGAINST EPA 

Climate-related cases 

Oklahoma filed separate petition and stay motion, 

represented by David Rivkin (Baker & Hostetler). OK and ND 

maintained separate liaison counsel from other states (WV, 

AL, AZ (Corporation Commission), AR, CO, FL, GA, IN, KS, KY, 

Clean Power Plan (carbon emission standards for LA, Ml (AG Schuette), MS, MO, MT, NE, NJ, NC DEQ OH, SC, 

existing power plants) challenge to final rule. SD, TX, UT, WI). State and industry petitioners filed joint 

West Virginia v. EPA Active case fully briefed, argued before en bane briefs (other petitioners include: UARG, APPA, NRECA, 

(D.C. Cir., filed Oct. court Sept. 2016. Clean Power Plan rule is currently Murray Energy, ACCCE, United Mine Workers, U.S. Chamber Cas

2015) stayed. of Commerce, NAM, et al.}. ong

In re: State of West Clean Power Plan- emergency petition to stay Clean Los

Virginia, et al. Power Plan rule priorto publication. Petitions Oklahoma filed jointly with other states (WV, AL, AR, FL, IN, pet

(D.C. Cir., filed Aug. denied Sept. 2015; challenge to final CPP ongoing in KS, KY, LA, Ml, NE, OH, SD, WI, WY). Case was consolidated den

2015) D.C. Cir (West Virginia v. EPA). with Peabody Energy petition for extraordinary writ. pre

Oklahoma and ODEQ filed July 2015 in the US Dist. Ct. for 

the Northern District of Oklahoma seeking declaratory and 

State of Oklahoma injunctive relief to prevent EPA from finalizing the proposed 

ex rei. Pruitt, et al. v. Clean Power Plan rule; Dist. Ct. dismissed. Oklahoma 

McCarthy, et al. Clean Power Plan- challenge to proposed rule. Case appealed to lOth Cir. and moved for a stay; lOth Cir. denied 

(lOth Cir., filed July dismissed Sept. 2015; challenge to final CPP stay. Oklahoma moved to dismiss appeal Sept. 2015 in 

2015) ongoing in D.C. Cir (West Virginia v. EPA). anticipation of publication of final CPP rule. Dis

Clean Power Plan- petition for review of settlement 

agreement in which EPA committed to proposing 

regulation of existing coal-fired power plants under Oklahoma filed jointly with other states (WV, AL, IN, KS, KY, Los

West Virginia v. EPA CAA section lll(d), filed after CPP proposed rule LA, NE, OH, OK, SC, SD, WY). States also intervened in similar pet

(D.C. Cir., filed Aug. published. Petitions denied June 2015. Challenge to Murray Energy cases (petitions for writ of prohibition and den

2014) final CPP ongoing i[]_[),C~ Cir (West \/irginia v. EPA}. review). Oral argument was held jointly all three cases. pre
State of West Oklahoma filed jointly with other states (WV, AL, AZ (Corp. 

Virginia, et al. v. Carbon emission standards for new power plants Comm'n), AR, FL, GA, IN, KS, KY, LA, LADECL Ml (AG 

EPA, et al. (NSPS)- petitions for review of EPA's denial of Schuette), MO, MT, NE, NCDECL OH, SC, SD, TX, UT, WI, WY). 

(D.C. Cir., filed July reconsideration, consolidated with challenge to Separate petitions filed by industry (Murray, UARG, APPA, Cas

2016) NSPS final rule (North Dakota v. EPA). EEL!). ong

Oklahoma filed jointly with other states (WV, TX, AL, AZ 

(Corp. Comm'n), AR, FL, GA, IN, KS, KY, LA, LADECL Ml (AG 

Schuette), MO, MT, NE, NCDECL OH, OK, SC, SD, UT, WI, WY; 

ND filed separately). All cases consolidated, including 

challenges to denial of reconsideration petitions. ND, all 

State of North other states, and industry filed three separate briefs (other 

Dakota v. EPA Carbon emission standards for new power plants petitioners include: Murray Energy, Peabody Energy, UARG, 

(D.C. Cir., filed Nov. {NSPS)- challenge to final rule. Active case- APPA, NMA, United Mine Workers, U.S. Chamber of Cas

2015) currently being briefed. Commerce, NAM, ACCCE, NRECA, EELI, et al.). ong

Oklahoma filed jointly with other states (WV, AI, AZ, KS, KY, 

American Petroleum LA, Ml (AG Schuette), MT, OH, OK, SC, WI, KYEEC, NCDEQ; 

Institute, et al. v. Methane emission standards for the oil and natural ND filed separately). Cases consolidated (other petitioners 

EPA (D.C. Cir., filed gas sector- challenge to final rule. Active case- include: API, Independent Oil & Gas Assoc. of America, Cas

Aug. 2016) briefing not yet started. several state oil & gas associations, et al.). ong

Oklahoma participated as intervenor in support of 

petitioners, jointly with AK, FL, IN, KY, LA, Ml, NE, ND, SC, SD, Los

Consolidated greenhouse gas cases: Endangerment and UT. State petitioners and intervenors filed one joint D.C

Coalition for Finding, Tailpipe Rule, Timing and Tailoring Rules. brief (petitioners include: AL, TX, VA, UARG, Alpha Natural pet

Responsible D.C. Cir. dismissed petitions for review of Timing Resources, American Farm Bureau, U.S. Chamber of den

Regulation, Inc., et and Tailoring Rules and denied remaining petitions. Commerce, Coalition for Responsible Regulation, dis

al. v. EPA Supreme Court reviewed limited question; affirmed Competitive Enterprise Institute, Massey Energy, NMA, larg

(D.C. Cir., filed Dec. in part and reversed in part in UARG v. EPA, 134 S. NAHB, NAM, Peabody Energy, Southeastern Legal aff

2009) Ct. 2427 (2014). Foundation, et al.). SCO

---------------

2 
Air pollution cases 

Oklahoma filed jointly with other states (AL, AZ, AR, KS, KY, 

Murray Energy Mercury and Air Taxies Standards- supplemental Ml (AG Schuette), NE, ND, OH, OK, SC, TX, WV, WI, WY, 

Corporation v. EPA 11 appropriate and necessary" finding. Active case- TCECL PUCT, TXRRC). All state and industry petitioners filed 

(D.C. Cir., filed June currently being briefed. MATS rule remains in one joint brief (other petitioners include: Murray Energy, Cas

2016) effect. ARIPPA, UARG, Southern Company, et al.). ong

Mix

D.C

pet

den

SCO

Mercury and Air Taxies Standards- challenge to Oklahoma filed jointly with other states (AL, AK, AZ, FL, ID, rev

final rule. D.C. Cir. denied petitions Apr. 2014. IN, KS, Ml, MS, MO, NE, ND, OH, OK, PA, SC, UT, VA, WV WY, cos

SCOTUS reviewed only with regard to consideration lA (Gov Branstad), KY (AG Conway)). State, industry, and que

State of Michigan v. of costs; reversed and remanded without vacatur. labor petitioners filed one joint brief (other petitioners sta

EPA (D.C. Cir., filed EPA made supplemental cost determination include: White Staillion Energy, NMA, UARG, APPA, Peabody left 

Apr. 2012) (subsequently challenged in Murray v. EPA). Energy, ARIPPA, United Mine Workers, et al.). bot

Oklahoma participated as intervenor for petitioners jointly 

White Stallion with other states (AL, AK, AZ, AR, FL, ID, IN, KS, MS, MO, NE, 

Energy Center, et al. ND, OH, OK, PA, SC, UT, VA, WV, WY, TX, TCE(L PUCT, 

v. EPA Emission standards for hazardous air pollutants TXRRC, Ml (AG Schuette), KY (AG Conway), lA (Gov 

(D.C. Cir., filed June from power plants. Case settled and dismissed Oct. Branstad)). All petitioner intervenors filed one joint brief per 

2012) 2014. order of the court. Set

Oklahoma filed jointly with other states (AR, AZ, ND, NM 

Murray Energy Env. Dept.; TX filed separately). State petitioners and 

Corporation v. EPA Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards- industry petitioners filed two separate briefs (other 

(D.C. Cir., filed Oct. challenge to final rule. Active case- briefing petitioners include: Murray Energy, UARG, U.S. Chamber, Cas

2015) completed, oral argument scheduled for Apr. 2017. NAM, API, Portland Cement Assoc., et al.). ong

3 
Oklahoma filed jointly with other states (FL, AL, AZ, AR, DE, 

GA, KS, LA, MS, MO, OH, OK, SC, SD, WV, KY, NCDENR). 

Update to policy for excess emissions during Cases consolidated; state petitioners and industry 

Walter Coke Inc. v. periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction- petitioners filed separate briefs (other petitioners include 

EPA (D.C. Cir., filed challenge to final rule. Active case· briefing Walter Coke, UARG, Southern Company, Luminant, Big Cas

Aug. 2015) completed, oral argument scheduled for May 2017. Brown, Ameren Missouri, TX Oil & Gas Assoc., et al.). ong

Public Service Cross-State Air Pollution Rule- challenge to Cas

Company of imposition of Federal Implementation Plans for abe

Oklahoma, d.b.a. Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma filed separately. Cases consolidated (other SCO

AEPv. EPA Wisconsin. Case held in abeyance pending petitioners: UARG, Public Service Company of OK, Western uph

(D.C. Cir., filed Feb. challenges to CSAPR Update Rule, published Oct. Farmers Electric Coop, Wisconsin Public Service Corp., imp

2012) 2016. Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co.). FIP

Los

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule- challenge to final cha

rule. On remand from Supreme Court (EPA v. EME Oklahoma filed jointly withAl, FL, NE, SC, TX, and VA. sta

Homer, 134 S.Ct. 1584 (2014)), D.C. Cir. considered Several other states, state agencies, and localities filed reje

EME Homer City several as-applied challenges to EPA's 2014 separately. All state and local petitioners filed one joint did 

Generation, L.P. v. emissions budgets. Rule remanded without vacatur brief; industry petitioners filed a separate joint brief (other cha

EPA (D.C. Cir., filed to EPA to reconsider 2014 emissions budgets. petitioners include: EME Homer, Murray Energy, Peabody CSA

Sept. 2011) Broader challenges to the Rule were rejected. Energy, United Mine Workers, UARG, NMA, et al.). Up

State of Oklahoma, 

et al. v. EPA, et al. Regional Haze· challenge to partial disapproval of Oklahoma filed jointly with Oklahoma Industrial Energy Los

(lOth Cir., filed Feb. Oklahoma's State Implementation Plan. lOth Cir. Consumers. Case consolidated with separate Oklahoma Gas pet

2012) denied the petitions for review July 2013. & Electric Co. petition. den

Grocery 

Manufacturers Partial grant of Clean Air Act Waiver Application to Oklahoma participated as amicus curiae supporting 

Association, et al. v. increase the allowable ethanol content of gasoline petitioners, jointly withAL, AK, and VA, arguing that EPA's 

EPA (D.C. Cir., filed to 15 percent. Dismissed Aug. 2012 for lack of grant of a partial waiver was invalid and threatened their Sup

July 2011) standing. state sovereignty. los

4 
Water pollution cases 

In re: DOD & EPA 

Final Rule: Clean Clean Water Rule: definition of "Waters of the Oklahoma filed separately in lOth Cir. Transferred to 6th Cir. 

Water Rule (6th Cir., United States"- challenge to final rule. Active case- and consolidated under Case No. 15-3751. All state Cas

filed July 2015) currently being briefed. petitioners filed joint brief. ong

State of Oklahoma 

ex rei. E. Scott Pruitt 

v. EPA 

(lOth Cir., filed July Clean Water Rule- Oklahoma challenge in lOth Cir., Oklahoma filed separately in lOth Cir. Transferred to 6th Cir. 

2015) transferred to 6th Cir. and consolidated. and consolidated. Tra

State of Oklahoma 

ex rei. E. Scott Pruitt Clean Water Rule Oklahoma challenge in OK 

v. EPA, et al. district court, dismissed due to lack of subject 

(Northern Dist. OK, matter jurisdiction after transfer and consolidation Oklahoma filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive 

filed July 2015) of all cases to 6th Cir. relief in OK Dist. Ct. Dis

Oklahoma participated as amicus curiae in support of 

Clean Water Act TMDL- agricultural trade reversal, jointly with KS, IN, MO, AL, AK, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, 

associations challenged EPA's CWA total maximum Ml, MT, NE, NO, SC, SD, TX, UT, WV, and WY. Argued that 

American Farm daily load (TMDL) regulations for nitrogen, EPA's "Chesapeake Bay [TMDL] defies the limits of the Clean 

Bureau Federation phosphorus, and sediment that can be released into Water Act and strips States of their traditional right to make 

et al. v EPA the Chesapeake Bay. D.C. Cir. affirmed the district the land-use decisions necessary to comply with federal Sup

(D.C. Cir., filed 2013) court's ruling upholding EPA's TMDL. water quality standards.11 los

Oklahoma participated as amicus curiae in support of 

petition for certiorari, jointly with WV, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CO, FL, 

GA, IN, KS, KY, LA, Ml, MO, MT, NE, NV, ND, OH, SC, SD, TX, 

Clean Water Act permitting- challenge to EPA UT, VA, WI, and WY. Argued that the DC Circuit's decision 

authority under CWA section 404(c) to withdraw a upholding EPA authority "threatens public works projects in 

Mingo Logan Coal disposal site specification after issuance of a dredge every State and fundamentally alters the way water 

Co. v. EPA (SCOTUS and fill permit. D.C. Cir. upheld EPA authority. pollution is regulated in this country." Amicus briefs were 

petition for cert. Mingo Logan petitioned for Supreme Court review; also filed by NMA, API, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, NAHB, Su

denied March 2014) cert. denied March 2014. NAM, Pacific legal Foundation, et al. los
Clean Water Act permitting- challenge to 

EPA/ACOE Enhanced Coordination Process for CWA 

mining permits and EPA's Final Guidance for CWA 

National Mining permits. D.C. Cir. reversed Dist. Ct. grant of Los

Association, et al. v. summary judgment to plaintiffs and remanded to Oklahoma participated, jointly withAL, AK, FL, KS, Ml, MT, jud

Gina McCarthy, et al. Dist. Ct. to grant judgment for Government on NE, OH, SC, and VA as amicus curiae in support of appellees, gov

(D.C. Cir., filed Oct. Enhanced Coord. Process claim and dismiss arguing that EPA's guidance conflicts with traditional and 

2012) challenge to Final Guidance. principles of cooperative federalism. dis

Other subject matter 

State of Oklahoma Freedom of Information Act- challenge to EPA's 

ex rei. Scott Pruitt v. denial of FOIA request seeking records of EPA Oklahoma filed as lead plaintiff jointly withAL, AZ, GA, KS, 

EPA communications with non~governmental Ml (Schuette), ND, SC, TX, UT, WY. Same states filed FOIA 

(Western Dist. OK, organizations. Dist. Ct. dismissed Dec. 2013, finding request in Feb. 2013, alleging that EPA engages in "sue and Los

filed July 2013) records requests vague and overly broad. settle'1 strategy with environmental groups. dis

San Luis & DeltaMendota Water Endangered Species Act- 9th Cir. partially reversed 

Authority, et al. v, and partially affirmed district court judgment 

Salazar et al. invalidating 2008 biological opinion by US FWS Oklahoma participated as amicus curiae in support of 

(9th Cir., filed Apr. concluding that water projects jeopardized Petitioners-Appellees' petition for rehearing en bane, jointly Su

2011) existence of delta smelt. with NE, AK, KS, SC, WY. los

Oklahoma participated as amicus curiae in support of 

EPA action under the CAA granting an application petitioners, jointly with ID, AL, CO, KS, MT, NE, ND, SD, and 

State of Wyoming v. from the Northern Arapaho and the Eastern UT. Amici states participated only to argue that" an 

EPA, et al. Shoshone Tribes to be treated in the same manner administrative agency is owed no deference with respect to 

(lOth Cir., filed Jan. as a State for certain non-regulatory CAA programs its application of federal common law principles to historical Cas

2015) on the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming. facts" ong

6 
CASES AGAINST OTHER AGENCIES OR ENTITIES 

WildEarth Guardians 

v. Scott Bidegain, Endangered Species Act- challenge to failure of 

Chairman of the New Mexico State Game Commission to regulate 

New Mexico State trapping in Mexican Wolf Experimental Population 

Game Commission, Area. lOth Cir. dismissed appeal for lack of Aritcle Ill Oklahoma participated as amicus curiae, jointly with AZ, GA, 

et al. (lOth Cir., filed standing and remanded to district court to vacate ID, IN, KS, LA, MS, MT, TX, and UT, arguing that reintroduced Sup

Jan. 2013) judgment and dismiss action. populations are not subject to ESA section 9 protections. losi

Oklahoma and the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance 

Endangered Species Act -Multi district Litigation sought declaratory and injunctive relief against FWS for 

In re: Endangered over FWS listing decisions for candidate species. alleged ESA, APA, and constitutional violations, challenging 

Species Act Section 4 FWS reached settlement agreements with CBD and FWS settlement agreements setting deadlines to complete 

Deadline Litigation - Wild Earth Guardians setting deadlines for listing listing determinations for candidate species. KS, ND, and OK 

MDL No. 2165 determinations. Active case- subsequent Farm Bureau subsequently joined as additional plaintiffs. 

(transferred to D.D.C. challenges to settlement agreements have been Over opposition by Oklahoma eta!., case transferred to Cas

Feb. 2015) consolidated. D.D.C. to be consolidated in Multidistrict Litigation no. 2165. ong

Hillsdale 

Environmental Loss 

i Prevention, Inc., et Oklahoma participated as amicus curiae (with the State of 

al. v. U.S. Army Clean Water Act permitting- challenge to ACOE Kansas) arguing that, contrary to arguments that ACOE 

Corps of Engineers, decision to grant dredge and fill Clean Water Act violated NEPA by failing to account for air pollution, Kansas' 

et al. sec. 404 permit for BNSF Railway intermodal facility, state air pollution limits will protect public health and the 

(lOth Cir., filed July alleging violations of CWA and NEPA. lOth Cir. states are the lead authority for air pollution control within Sup

2011) upheld ACOE decision to grant permit Nov. 2012. their boundaries. win

Multi-state challenge to California state law 

governing the sale of shell eggs: Assembly Billl437 

("AB1437") and CDFA Shell Egg Food Safety 

regulation 1350(d), seeking declaration of 

State of Missouri, et unconstitutionality and injunction of enforcement. The States of Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Los

al. v. Kamala Harris, In Nov. 2016 9th Cir. affirmed district court's Kentucky, and Alabama brought this action against the dism

et al. (9th Cir., filed dismissal of action for lack of standing; remanded Attorney General of California and the Secretary of the lack 

Oct. 2014) with instructions to dismiss without prejudice. California Department of Food and Agriculture. stan

7 
61 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you, sir. 

To reflect your recollection, you filed two lawsuits challenging the 

EPA Mercury and Air Toxics Standard; you filed a lawsuit challenging the EPA’s 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for ozone; you filed four lawsuits challenging the EPA’s Clean 

Power Plan; you have sued to challenge the EPA’s 111(b) standards 

for carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants; and you also 

sued to challenge the EPA’s Federal implementation plan for Oklahoma under the Regional Haze Rule. 

You are familiar with those, I imagine? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, Senator. 

Senator BOOKER. And you filed a lawsuit challenging the EPA 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, something in New Jersey we are 

very concerned with. Are you aware that that rule, which you lost 

in that suit, scientists estimate that that alone prevents 400,000 

asthma attacks nationally each year? Are you aware of those estimations? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, Your Honor. Yes, Senator. May I offer—— 

Senator BOOKER. I appreciate your promotion to judge. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOOKER. Let me continue, Mr. Pruitt. I don’t have much 

time. 

Mr. PRUITT. OK. 

Senator BOOKER. So each of these lawsuits that I just went 

through and that we analyzed, all of them challenge attempts by 

the EPA to reduce air pollution. In all of them except one you filed 

those lawsuits joining with polluting companies that were also 

suing the EPA. And so, in addition to filing those lawsuits with 

some of the polluting companies, or at least one that has now been 

specifically mentioned by two of my colleagues, you used substantial portions of the letters from those companies, put them on your 

official Attorney General letterhead, and what was sort of surprising to me is that when you have been asked about this in the 

public, you basically represented that that is actually called representative government in my view of the world. Your testimony 

here says that you were representing industry; you were representing the polluters. 

So with all of these lawsuits you filed, and with all of these letters like this one, written to the EPA on behalf of the industries 

that are causing the pollution, it seems clear to me that obviously 

the fact pattern on representing polluters is clear, that you worked 

very hard on behalf of these industries that have their profits externalized, negative externalities are their pollution. 

So I just have a question for you specifically about the children 

of Oklahoma. Do you know how many kids in Oklahoma, roughly, 

have asthma? 

Mr. PRUITT. I do not, Senator. 

Senator BOOKER. Well, according to data published by the very 

non-partisan group, the American Lung Association, more than 

111,000 children in Oklahoma, which is more than 10 percent, 

more than 1 in 10 of all the kids in Oklahoma, have asthma. That 

is one of the highest asthma rates in the entire United States of 

America. 
62 

Now, this is a crisis; similar data, for where I was mayor, and 

I can tell you firsthand the devastating impacts that asthma has 

on children and families; affecting their economic well being, parents who have to watch their children struggle to breathe, people 

that have to miss work, rushing their kids to the hospital. One in 

10 kids having a disease, missing school, is a significant problem. 

So if you have been writing letters on behalf of polluting industries, I want to ask you how many letters did you write to the EPA 

about this health crisis? If this is representative government, did 

you represent those children? I want to know what actions you 

have taken in the past 6 years in your capacity as protector of the 

welfare of Oklahoma citizens to protect the welfare of those 

111,000 children. Did you ever let any of them write letters on your 

letterhead to the EPA, and did you even file one lawsuit, one lawsuit on behalf of those kids to reduce the air pollution in your State 

and help them to have a healthy life? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, I have actually provided a list of cases to 

the Chairman with respect to enforcement steps we have taken in 

multiple pieces of environmental litigation. But let me say to you, 

with respect to cross-State pollution and some of the cases you referred to, the State has to have an interest before it can bring those 

cases, as you know. You can’t just bring a lawsuit if you don’t have 

standing, if there has not been some injury to the State of Oklahoma. In each of those cases—— 

Senator BOOKER. My time has expired, but if I could just say injury, clearly asthma is triggered and caused by air pollutants. 

Clearly there is an air pollution problem. And the fact that you 

have not brought suits in any of the levels which you have represented the industries that are causing the pollution is really 

problematic when you are going to sit in a position that is nationally supposed to be affecting this reality. And asthma, in our country, is the No. 1 reason why children in America, health reason 

why children in America miss school. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. 

I submit for the record first an article from the Tulsa World from 

Scott Thompson. The headline is ‘‘EPA will be in good hands with 

Scott Pruitt.’’ Scott Thompson is the Executive Director of the 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. Talks about the 

excellent work done and ends with a quote: ‘‘EPA will be in good 

hands with Scott Pruitt.’’ 

I would point out that between 2004 and 2008—and we will submit this for the record—the most recent employers of Obama administration senior EPA officials sue the EPA with 12 lawsuits, at 

least, in the time when George W. Bush was in his second term, 

including Lisa Jackson, Assistant Administrator Cynthia Giles, 

Gina McCarthy, and Stephen Owens. They were petitioners and 

plaintiffs filing suits against the EPA. 

And finally, I will submit an editorial from the Tulsa World. 

‘‘Over the past 6 years, Pruitt’s legal team has consistently shown 

deference to the legal expertise and professionals at DEQ,’’ the Department of Environmental Quality. This was written by the executive director. More importantly, he said, ‘‘I cannot recall an in-
63 

stance where they did not allow us to pursue legal action when 

deemed necessary.’’ 

And then, finally, from Mike Turpen, who is the former Chairman of the Oklahoma Democratic Party, says, ‘‘The job of the EPA 

is the essential mission of guaranteeing clean air and clean water. 

Pruitt has never compromised those critical components of a 

healthy population with any actions he has taken.’’ 

[The referenced information follows:] 
64 

-~~TuLSA WoRLD 

Tulsa World: Scott Thompson: EPA will be in good hands with 

Scott Pruitt ~~"\ Scott Thompson, Executive Director of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental~ 

Published: Friday, Dec. 30,2016 

In my time as the executive director of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, I have 

worked with Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt and have been fortunate to experience a 

productive relationship. Having worked with Pruitt, I feel I can add a unique perspective that may 

currently be missing from the conversation. 

When Pruitt took office, his team exhibited deftness at moving complex environmental issues mired in 

protracted litigation toward workable solutions. 

Over the past six years, Pruitt's legal team has consistently shown deference to the legal expertise 

and professionals at DEQ. More importantly, I cannot recall an instance where they did not allow us 

to pursue legal action we deemed necessary. 

One such example involved negotiations he initiated to protect Oklahoma's Scenic Rivers from 

phosphorus pollution. Pruitt insisted on using science as the determining factor in a legal dispute 

between Oklahoma and Arkansas, which had long been in dispute about Arkansas's upstream 

pollution of Oklahoma's Scenic Rivers. Ultimately, Pruitt's actions resulted in the preservation of 

Oklahoma's desired standard of phosphorus levels in our rivers. 

Pruitt was essential in negotiating an historic water rights settlement with Indian tribes in southeast 

Oklahoma that preserved the ecosystems of scenic lakes and rivers. This settlement, when Pruitt first 

arrived in office, seemed impossible due to conflict among the parties involved. 

Lastly, DEQ has independently managed our state and federal regulatory programs, including 

enforcement cases, as well as our daily operations free of the worry we might face pressure or 

politicizing of our responsibilities by the Office of the Attorney General. We are fortunate to have 

experienced this situation as I am not sure my counterparts in other states have a similar relationship 

with their attorney general's offiCe. 

This experience gives me confidence in how Pruitt will address similar politically fraught challenges 

as the next EPA Administrator. Looking at the issues facing EPA. I believe he will make refonns in 

line with his actions in Oklahoma. 

Among them: 
65 

·To prioritize funding for states that are effectively implementing programs and enforcing the rules 

while aggressively streamlining the bureaucracy so resources can be used where they make the 

biggest difference; 

• To measure success not based on number of new rules created, but on achieving solutions while 

minimizing the burdens placed companies and citizens who are trying to play by the rules; 

·To consuH states and localities on any updates that are made to rules and regulations rather than 

having a top down government-knows-best approach. 

It has been my experience, that the principles behind these reforms guided the implementation of 

policy. Pruitt looked for our guidance on rule changes and assisted us when we needed clarification 

of rules or legal support. He and his team focused their efforts on burdensome, and in my opinion, 

oftentimes unnecessary, rules EPA has promulgated without clear authority. 

I believe EPA will be In good hands with Scott Pruitt and his confirmation will ensure an 

environmental agency that once again is responsive and fair to the citizens it serves. 
66 

RE: nominees to EPA that are suing the agency 

Between 2004 and the end of 2008, the most recent employers of Obama 

Administration senior EPA officials confirmed in the lll 1h Congress following 

the 2008 presidential election (including Administrator Lisa Jackson, and 

Assistant Administrators Cynthia Giles, Gina McCarthy, and Stephen Owens) 

were petitioners/plaintiffs in 12 lawsuits filed in federal appellate and district 

courts against U.S. EPA. " \ , r ;,,'r (l\'> 

Notes: 

This includes petitioners/plaintiffs but does not include intervenors. 

This includes the following "previous employers" (cases, which includes overlapping 

cases): 

o Lisa Jackson: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection/State of New 

Jersey (5) 

o Cynthia Giles: Conservation Law Foundation (2) 

o Gina McCarthy: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection/State of 

Connecticut (7) 

o Stephen Owens: Arizona DEQ/State of Arizona (1) 

Below are the cases we could find (12 with former employers as petitioner/plaintiff): 

State of NJ Dept of Env Protec v. EPA 

Filed: December 22, 2008 as 08-4818 

Petitioner: NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

Intervenor: RRI ENERGY MID-ATLANTIC POWER HOLDINGS LLC 

Respondent: UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Court: Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Third Circuit 

Type: Other Statutes > Other 

Conservation Law Foundation v. Environmental Protection Agency et al 

Filed: October 28, 2008 as 2:2008cv00238 

Plaintiff: Conservation Law Foundation 

Defendant: Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Protection Agency Region I 

Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant 

Court: Second Circuit> Vermont> Ve1mont District Court 

Type: Other Statutes > None 

States Of New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Michigan. Minnesota, 

Missouri, Washington v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al 

Filed: October 2, 2008 as 7:2008cv08430 

Plaintiff: States Of New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Missouri, Washington, States Of New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, 
67 

Minnesota, Missouri, Washington, States Of New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Washington and others 

Defendant: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Stephen L. Johnson 

Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant 

Court: Second Circuit> New York> New York Southern District Court 

Type: Other Statutes> None 

States Of New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Missquri, Washington v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al 

Filed: October 2, 2008 as I :2008cv08430 

Plaintiff: States Of New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Missouri, Washington, States Of New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Missouri, Washington, States OfNew York, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Washington and others 

Dercndant: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Stephen L. Jolmson 

Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant 

Court: Second Circuit> New York> New York Southern District Court 

Type: Other Statutes> None 

State of New York, et al v. EPA 

Filed: August 25, 2008 as 08-1279 

Petitioner: State ofNew York, State of California, State of Connecticut and others 

Respondent: Environmental Protection Agency 

Court: D.C. Circuit U.S. Comt of ApPeals. D.C. Circuit 

Type: Other Statutes > Other 

State of New York v. EPA 

Filed: May 27, 2008 as 08-1202 

Petitioner: State ofNew York, State of California, by and through Arnold Schwarzenegger, 

Governor of the State of California, California Air Resources Board and others 

Respondent: Environmental Protection Agency 

Court: D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. D.C. Circuit 

Type: Other Statutes > Other 

State of New York v. EPA 

Filed: May 5, 2008 as 08-1179 

Petitioner: State of New York, State of Arizona, State ofCmmecticut and others 

Respondent: Environmental Protection Agency 

Intervenor For Respondent: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, National Automobile 

Dealers Association 

Amicus Curiae For Respondent: American Petroleum lnstinJte, Chamber of Commerce of the 

United States of America, Utility Air Regulatory Group 
68 

Amicus Curiae For Petitioner: National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), National 

Association of Counties, National League of Cities and others 

Movant-Amicus Curiae For Petitioner: City of Sacramento 

Movant-Amicus Curiae For Respondent: Jolm Campbell, United States Representative 

Court: D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Aooeals, D.C. Cireuit 

Type: Other Statutes > Other 

Natural Resources Defense Conn. et al v. EPA, et al 

Filed: May 5, 2008 as 08-1180 

Petitioner: Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Conservation Law Foundation and 

others 

Respondent: Environmental Protection Agency, Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Amicus Curiae For Respondent: American Petroleum Institute, Chamber of Commerce of the 

United States of America, Utility Air Regulatory Group 

Amicus Curiae For Petitioner: National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), National 

Association of Counties, National League of Cities and others 

Movant-Amicus Curiae For Petitioner: City of Sacramento 

Movant-Amicus Curiae For Respondent: Jolm Campbell, United States Representative 

Court: D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. D.C. Circuit 

Type: Other Statutes > Other 

StatcofNcwJerseyv. EPA 

Filed: February 19, 2008 as 08-1065 

Petitioner: State of New Jersey 

Respondent: Environmental Protection Agency 

Intervenor For Respondent: Air Permitting Fonnn, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, 

American Chemistry Council and others 

Court: D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit 

Type: Other Statutes > Other 

Stute of New York et al v. State of Illinois et al 

Filed: November 28,2007 as 1:2007cv10632 

Plaintiff: State of New York, The State Arizona., State of California and others 

Defendant: Stephen L. Johnson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Cause Of Action: Maritime Subsidy Board 

Court: Second Circuit> New York} New York Southern District Court 

Type: Other Statutes ) Enyjronmental Matters 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY et alv. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY et al 

Filed: February 6, 2007 as 3:2007cv00612 

Plaintiff: NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, STATE 

OF NEW JERSEY 

Defendant: UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, STEPHEN L. 

JOHNSON 
69 

Cause Of Action: Clean Air Act 

Court: Third Circuit> New Jersey> New Jersey District Court 

Type: Other Statutes > Environmental Matters 

St NJ. et al v. EPA )tr 

Filed: March 28,2005 as 05-1097 

Petitioner: State of New Jersey, State of California, State of Connecticut and others 

Respondent: Environmental Protection Agency 

Intervenor For Respondent: Utility Air R~:gulatory Group, PPL Corp., PSEG Fossil LLC and 

others 

Intervenor For Petitioner: Physicians for Social Responsibility, American Nurses Association, 

The American Public Health Association and others 

Terminated Party: Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians, Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, 

Penobscot Indian Nation and others 

Intervenor: State of Rhode Island, West Associates, National Mining Association 

Amicus Curiae For Respondent: Washington Legal Foundation, The State of West Virginia, 

Department of Environmental Protection 

Court: D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit 

Type: Other Statutes > Other 

*NJ as intervenor against EPA: 

American Petroleum Institute v. EPA 

Filed: August 21,2008 as 08-1277 

Petitioner: American Petroleum Institute, National Petrochemical & Refmers 

Association, Westem States Petroleum Association 

Respondent: Environmental Protection Agency 

Intervenor For Petitioner: Lion Oil Company, State ofNew Jersey 

Intervenor For Respondent: Environmental Integrity Project, Natural Resources 

Defense Council, Sierra Club and others 

Court: D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit 

Type: Other Statutes > Other 
70 

Mike Turpen: Scott Pruitt is a good choice for EPA chief- Tulsa World: Homepagelatest Page I of2 

Mike Turpen: Scott Pruitt is a good choice for EPA 

chief 

By Mike Turpen 1 Posted: Monday, December 12, 2016 9:00 am 

With all the fireworks of the 2016 campaign now 

silenced, President-elect Donald Trump is getting 

to work assembling a government. As a lifelong 

Democrat, I may not agree with all of the 

president-elect's policies or nominees, but I do 

know that Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt 

is a good choice to head up the Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

As a Democrat, I take seriously the threats to our 

environment, and I believe we must work to 

address issues such as pollution, climate change 

and ensuring clean air and water. Pruitt's 

background in constitutional law combined with a 

nuanced understanding of how environmental 

regulations affect the economy mean that he will 

be a thoughtful leader of the EPA and one capable 

of striking the balance between protecting the 

environment and our economy. 

Pruitt understands that an American energy 

revolution is a means of new jobs and new wealth 

Mike Turpen 

Turpen 

in our country. Of course, the energy industry, just like any other industry, should be subject to 

appropriate scrutiny to make sure laws are followed, our environment is protected and Americans 

are safe. The potential for the energy industry to contribute to an economic renaissance is 

enormous: half a million jobs each year and $30 billion in higher wages, according to one study. 

Finally, the job of the EPA is the essential mission of guaranteeing clean air and clean water. 

Pruitt has never compromised those critical components of a healthy population with any actions 

he has taken. ''We drink the water, we breathe the air here in Oklahoma. To think that we don't 

care about that, and somehow are being led to sacrifice those things ... (is) not accurate," Pruitt 

told the Financial Times. 

http://www. tulsaworld.comlhomepagelatest/mike-turpen-scott -pruitt-is-a-good-choice-for-... 1/16/20 17 
71 

Mike Turpen: Scott Pruitt is a good choice for EPA chief- Tulsa World: Homepagelatest Page 2 of2 

I am convinced Scott Pruitt will work to protect our natural habitats, reserves and resources. His 

vision for a proper relationship between protection and prosperity makes him superbly qualified to 

serve as our next EPA administrator. 

Mike Turpen is a former attorney general of Oklahoma and a former chairman of the Oklahoma 

Democratic Party. He wrote this for InsideSources.com. 

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/mike-turpen-scott-pruitt-is-a-good-choice-for-... J/16/2017 
72 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Attorney General Pruitt. 

Mr. PRUITT. Thank you, Senator Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. I notice that you didn’t have the opportunity in 

the time allotted for Senator Booker’s question. Would you care to 

finish your response with regard to the role that the States have 

in their ability to either participate in a suit and whether or not 

they have standing? Would you like to finish your thoughts on 

that? 

Mr. PRUITT. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator, as I indicated in your office, when we spent time together, the enforcement role in the State of Oklahoma is different 

than other States. With respect to the Department of Environmental Quality, the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, we had 

multiple agencies, Department of Agriculture, that have frontline 

enforcement authority with respect to our environmental laws. 

The role that we play in my office largely is a general counsel 

role. We provide guidance and direction to those agencies. There 

were many cases we have initiated in conjunction with them, but 

mainly those agencies enforce actions at their level. Many of those 

agencies have dozens of attorneys on their staff and a general 

counsel in their own right bringing those enforcement actions. 

You mentioned several of the cases. From MATS to Cross-State 

Air Pollution and the rest. I believe the Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule is a very important statute that EPA should enforce. I believe 

that if there are downwind States that are contributing to non-attainment—I am sorry, upwind States that are contributing to nonattainment in downwind States, that there should be responsibility 

for those States. We had that issue with Texas at times. 

So the lawsuit was not questioning the authority of the EPA to 

regulate under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule; it was more that 

they were trying to assess damages against certain States that 

were in excess of their allocated share. 

So each of those cases I would ask you to remember I am an advocate in behalf of the State of Oklahoma. There is a State’s interest that Senator Rounds indicated that has to be in play. To say 

that any of those cases is about any one company is just simply not 

right. There is no parens patriae standing that I have as Attorney 

General to bring a case on behalf of a private citizen or a company; 

there has to be a standing, an injury to the State’s interest to bring 

those cases. 

So I would ask you to consider that as we go through those cases 

you mentioned earlier. 

Thank you, Senator Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

And thank you, sir, for your response, your complete response. 

Also, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of the 

Environmental Protection Agency, I have had the opportunity to 

look at their basis or the way that they make their decisions known 

and the logic they use in getting to those decisions. We had a 

chance to talk about it in my office the other day, and one of the 

items that I brought up was the fact that we actually had received 
73 

comments from the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, a copy of which I got. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have those put into the record. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
74 

Advocacy: the voice of small business in government 

The Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Administrator 

October I, 2014 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Maj. Gen. John Peabody 

Deputy Commanding General 

Civil and Emergency Operations 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Attn: CECW-CO-R 441 G Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20314-1000 

Re: Definition of uwaters of the United States" Under the Clean Water Act 1 

Dear Administrator McCarthy and Major General Peabody: 

The Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration (Advocacy) submits 

these comments regarding the proposed rule to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) 

and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, and together, "the agencies"). Advocacy 

believes that EPA and the Corps have improperly certified the proposed rule under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) because it would have direct, significant effects on small 

businesses. Advocacy recommends that the agencies withdraw the rule and that the EPA 

conduct a Small Business Advocacy Review panel before proceeding any further with this 

rulemaking. 

The Office of Advocacy and the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Advocacy was established pursuant to Pub. L 94-305 to represent the views of small 

entities before federal agencies and Congress. Advocacy is an independent office within 

SBA, so our views do not necessarily reflect those of SBA or the Administration. The 

RFA, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

(SBREFA),2 requires small entities to be considered in the federal rulemaking process. 

The RFA requires federal agencies to consider the impact of their proposed rules on small 

businesses. When a rule is expected to have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, agencies must evaluate the impact, consider less 

1 Dcf1nition of Waters of the United States Under the Clean Water Act. 79 Fed Reg. 22188 {Aprii2L 2014). 

~Pub. L. 104~121. Title II. 110 Stat. 857 (1996) (codified in various sections of5U.S.C. §601 ct seq.). 
75 

burdensome alternatives, and in the case of EPA, convene a Small Business Advocacy 

Review panel. 3 The RF A directs Advocacy to monitor agency compliance with the RF A. 

To this end, Advocacy may file written comments reflecting small business concerns 

about the impact of a rulemaking. 4 Because of small business concerns with the proposed 

rule, Advocacy held a roundtable on July 21, 2014 and has heard from numerous small 

entities in many industries. 

Background 

The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted in 1972 to "restore and maintain the chemical, 

physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters."5 The CWA accomplishes this 

by eliminating the "discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters."6 The CW A defines 

"navigable waters" as "the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas."7 

Existing regulations currently define "waters of the United States" as traditional 

navigable waters, interstate waters, all other waters that could affect interstate or foreign 

commerce, impoundments of waters of the United States, tributaries, the territorial seas, 

and adjacent wetlands. 8 

The CW A requires a permit in order to discharge pollutants, dredged, or fill materials 

into any body of water deemed to be a "water of the United States."9 The EPA generally 

administers these permits, but EPA and the Corps jointly administer and enforce certain 

permit programs under the Act. 10 

The extent of the Act's jurisdiction has been the subject of much litigation and regulatory 

action, including three Supreme Court decisions. Actions of the Court have expanded and 

contracted the definition, especially regarding wetlands and smaller bodies of water. 

• In 1985, the Supreme Court determined that adjacent wetlands may be included in 

the regulatory definition of''waters of the United States." 11 

• In 2001, the Court held that migratory birds' use of isolated "nonnavigable" 

intrastate ponds was not sufficient cause to extend federal jurisdiction under the 

CWA.12 

• In 2006, the Supreme Court considered whether wetlands near ditches or manmade drains that eventually empty into traditional navigable waters were 

3 5 u.s.c. § 603, 605. 4 The Small Business Jobs Act of2010 (Pub. L. 111-240 § 1601) also requires agencies to give every 

appropriate consideration to Advocacy's written comments on a proposed rule. This response must be 

included in an explanation or discussion accompanying the final rule's publication in the Federal Register 

unless the agency certifies that the public interest is not served by doing so. 5 33 U.S.C. § l251(a) (1972). 6 1d. at§ 125l(a)(l). 7 ld. at § 1362(7). 8 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a); 40 C.F.R. §230.3(s). 9

33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a). 1342, 1344. 10 ld. at§ 1344. 11 United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, 474 U.S. 121, 134-135 (1985). 12 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC), 53 I U.S. 

159, 174 (2001). 

-2-
76 

considered "waters of the United States." 13 Justice Scalia, writing for the plurality, 

determined that "only those wetlands with a continuous surface connection to 

bodies that are 'waters of the United States' [ ... ] are 'adjacent to' such waters 

and covered by the Act.'' 14 Justice Kennedy concurred in the judgment, but 

concluded that the Corps must establish the existence of a "significant nexus" 

when it asserted jurisdiction over wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries. 15 

The courts have left much uncertainty regarding what constitutes a "water of the United 

States." Such uncertainty has made it difficult for small entities to know which waters are 

subject to jurisdiction and CWA permitting. 

To address this uncertainty, the EPA and Corps proposed this rule which would revise the 

regulatory definition of"watcrs of the United States" and would apply to all sections of 

the Clean Water Act. The proposed rule defines "waters of the United States" within the 

framework of the CWA as the following seven categories: 

• All waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be 

susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters 

which arc subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; 

• All interstate waters, including interstate wetlands; 

• The territorial seas; 

• All impoundments of a traditional navigable water, interstate water, the 

territorial seas or a tributary; 

• All tributaries of a traditional navigable water, interstate water, the 

territorial seas or impoundment; 

• All waters, including wetlands, adjacent to a traditional navigable water, 

interstate water, the territorial seas, impoundment or tributary; and 

• On a case-specific basis, other waters, including wetlands, provided that 

those waters alone, or in combination with other similarly situated waters, 

including wetlands, located in the same region, have a significant nexus to 

a traditional navigable water, interstate water or the territorial seas. 16 

The proposed rule defines several terms for the first time: "neighboring," "riparian area," 

"floodplain," "tributary," and "significant nexus"; and it clarifies the terms, ·'adjacent" 

and "wetlands." 17 The rule leaves the regulatory definitions of"traditional navigable 

waters," "interstate waters," "the territorial seas," and "impoundments" unchanged. 18 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Requirements 

The RFA states that "[w]henever an agency is required by section 553 of this title, or any 

other law, to publish general notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed rule, or 

13 Rapanos v. United Stales. 547 U.S. 715,729 (2006). 14 Id. at 742. 15 Id. at 779 (Kennedy, J., concurring). 16 79 Fed. Reg. at 22,198. 17 See !d. at 22,263, for the complete definitions of"adjacent," "neighboring," "riparian area," '·floodplain,'' 

••tributary/" "wetlands,'~ and ""significant nexus.'' 18 ld. 

- 3 -
77 

publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking for an interpretative rule involving the internal 

revenue laws ofthe United States, the agency shall prepare and make available for public 

comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis [lRF A]. Such analysis shall describe the 

impact of the proposed rule on small entities."19 

Under Section 609(b) of the RF A, EPA is required to conduct small business advocacy 

review panels, often referred to as SBREFA panels, when it is unable to certifY that a rule 

will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. 

SBREFA panels consist of representatives of the rulemaking agency, the Office of 

Management and Budget's Office oflnformation and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), and the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy. SBREFA panels give small entity representatives (SERs) a 

chance to understand an upcoming proposed rule and provide meaningful input to help 

the agency comply with the RF A. SERs help the panel understand the ramifications of 

the proposed rule and significant alternatives to it. 

Section 605(b) of the RFA allows an agency to certify that a rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities in lieu of preparing 

an IRF A.20 When certifying, the agency must provide a factual basis for the 

certification.21 In the current case, the agencies have certified that revising the definition 

of"waters of the United States" will not have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small businesses. 

The Proposed Rule Has Been Certified in Error 

Advocacy believes that the agencies have improperly certified this rule. Advocacy, and 

the small businesses we have spoken to, believe that 

• The agencies used an incorrect baseline for determining their obligations under 

the RFA; 

• The rule imposes costs directly on small businesses; and 

• The rule will have a significant economic impact on small businesses. 

A. The Agencies Use the Incorrect Baseline for its Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Certification 

Advocacy believes that the agencies used the wrong baseline for their RFA certification. 

In certifying the rule, the agencies state that, "This proposed rule is narrower than that 

under the existing regulations ... fewer waters will be subject to the CWA under the 

proposed rule than are subject to regulation under the existing regulations."22 On this 

19 5 u.s.c. §603. 20 5 u.s.c. §605. 

2l ld. 22 ld. 

-4-
78 

basis the agencies conclude that, "This action will not affect small entities to a greater 

degree than the existing regulations."23 

The "existing regulations" that the agencies refer to in this reasoning is the 1986 rule 

defining the scope of waters of the United States. Compared to the 1986 definition, the 

proposed changes represent a narrowing of coverage. However, in the economic analysis 

accompanying the rule, the agencies assess the regulation vis-a-vis current practice and 

determine that the rule increases the CWA's jurisdiction by approximately 3 percent.24 

The agencies' certification and economic analysis contradict each other. 

Advocacy believes that the proper baseline from which to assess the rule's impact is 

current practice. Guidance from the Office of Management and Budget's Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) substantiates this view. OIRA's Circular A-4 

provides guidance to federal agencies on the development of regulatory analysis. 25 It 

states that "The baseline should be the best assessment of the way the world would look 

absent the proposed action."26 The 1986 regulation has been abrogated by several 

Supreme Court cases and is no longer in use. 27 The Corps and EPA also issued a 

guidance document in 2008 which sought to bring jurisdictional determinations in line 

with these Supreme Court cases.28 The 1986 regulation does not represent the current 

method for determining jurisdiction and has not served that purpose for more than 

thirteen years. Using an obsolete baseline improperly diminishes the effects of this rule. 

Advocacy agrees with the agencies' economic analysis that uses current practice as the 

appropriate baseline for evaluating the rule. 

B. The Rule Imposes Costs Directly on Small Businesses 

The second basis for the certification appears to be the agencies' position that the impact 

on small businesses will be indirect, hence not requiring an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis or a SBAR panel.29 EPA cites Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc., v. Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission30 and American Trucking Associations, Inc., v. EPA31 in 

support of their certification.32 Advocacy believes that the agencies' reliance on Mid-Tex 

and American Trucking is misplaced because the proposed rule will have direct effects on 

small businesses. 

23 !d. 

24 !d. 25 Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars a004 a4/#e (September 17, 2003). 26 !d. 27 See Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. US Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC). 531 

U.S. 159, 174 (2001); Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715,729 (2006). 28 Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Rapanos v. Uniled 

States and Carabe/1 v. United States, December 2, 2008, 

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/CW Awaters.cfm . 29 79 Fed Reg at 22,220. 30 Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulat01y Commission (FERC), 773 F.2d 327, 

342 (D.C. Cir. 1985). 31 American Trucking Associations v. £"FA, 175 F.Jd 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1999). 32 79 Fed Reg. at 22,220. 

- 5 -
79 

In Mid-Tex, 33 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued regulations 

instructing generating utilities how to include costs of construction work in their rates. 

Although the generating utilities were large businesses, their customers included small 

entities, to whom they may or may not have been able to pass on these costs through any 

rate changes.34 The issue raised in this case was whether the agency had improperly 

certified the rule because it failed to consider the impact on the small business customers. 

The court concluded that an agency is required to file an IRF A only in cases where a 

regulation directly affects small businesses;35 if it does not, an agency may properly 

certify. 

In Mid-Tex, the proposed regulation's applicability to small businesses is akin to the 

FERC regulation's applicability to the generating utilities themselves, not their 

customers, as EPA seems to believe. Generating utilities were an intervening actor 

between the regulatory agency and the small business customers; the utilities had a 

substantial amount of discretion as to whether they would pass on their construction costs 

to their small entity customers and, if so, how much of those costs they would pass on. 

Such is not the case with this rule. First, there is no intervening regulated actor. In MidTex, the generating utilities were the entities regulated and bound by FERC guidelines, 

and it was not certain that they would pass on the costs ofthe new guidelines to their 

small business customers. In the current case, the Clean Water Act and the revised 

definition proposed in this rule directly determine permitting requirements and other 

obligations. It is unquestionable that small businesses will continue to seek permits under 

the Clean Water Act. Therefore they will be subject to the application of the proposed 

definition and the impacts arising from its application. 

Second, the rule defines the scope of jurisdiction ofthe Clean Water Act without any 

discretion left to any entity or intermediary. The rule does not, for example, set a goal for 

which types or how many waters must be included in jurisdiction, leaving the Corps or 

states to determine the exact definition of waters of the United States in particular 

instances. This rule establishes the definition and all small entities are bound by it. 

In American Trucking/ 6 the EPA's certification of rules to establish a primary national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone was challenged. The basis of the EPA's 

certification was that the NAAQS regulated small entities indirectly through state 

implementation plans. The rules gave states broad discretion to determine how to achieve 

compliance with the NAAQS. 37 The rules required EPA to approve any state plan that 

met the standards; it could not reject a plan based upon its view ofthe wisdom of a state's 

choices. 38 Under these circumstances, the court concluded that EPA had properly 

33 773 F .2d at 342. 34 I d. The generating utilities were not required to pass on the rate increases and in some cases were limited 

by state law in how much of the rate increase could be passed on to customers. 

3s Id. 36 175 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1999). 

37 ld. 38_Id. at 1044. 

- 6-
80 

certified because any impacts to small entities would flow from the individual states' 

actions and thus be indirect. 39 

EPA's proposed rule is distinguishable from the regulations at issue in American 

Trucking. The states were intervening actors with broad discretion regarding how to 

implement the federal standards. The EPA rules only told the states what the goal was; 

the states were left to develop the plans that would implement those goals and thereby 

impose impacts on small businesses.40 In the current case, the agencies are not defining a 

goal nor are they authorizing any third party to determine the means and methods for 

reaching the goal. To the contrary, the agencies are defining the term governing the 

applicability of their own CWA programs. A change in the scope of the definition of 

"waters of the United States" necessarily leads to an increase in the scope and impact of 

the CW A since the programs thereunder only apply to waters that fall within this 

definition. The agencies, not a third party, determine whether a given body of water is 

within the jurisdiction of the requirements of the Clean Water Act and therefore subject 

to it. 

Small businesses have also provided specific examples of how this rule will directly 

impact them. For example, during a May hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Small Business, Jack Field of the Lazy JF Cattle Co. testified that the rule 

would essentially eliminate an exemption for normal farming practices that he relies upon 

to do things such as building a fence to control his grazing cattle. 41 The proposed rule 

would eliminate the exemption for farmers whose actions do not comply with Natural 

Resources Conservation Services standards. 42 

Small entities in the utility industry have expressed that this proposed rule could 

eliminate the advantages of Nationwide Permit 12- Utility Line Projects (NWP 12). 

Utility companies use NWP 12 to construct and maintain roads that provide access to the 

utility grid. Under NWP 12 a "single and complete" project that results in less than a Y2 

acre loss of waters of the U.S. is allowed to proceed under NWP 12 rather than obtain an 

individual CWA permit.43 Currently, each crossing of a road over a water of the U.S. is 

treated as a "single and complete" project. The proposed rule creates large areas in which 

NWP 12 could no longer be used at all. Under this proposed rule waters in the same 

riparian area or floodplain all become adjacent waters and therefore waters ofthe U.S. If 

all of the waters in the riparian area or floodplain are treated as one interconnected water 

ofthe U.S. it would be virtually impossible for small utility companies to use NWP 12. 

Small utilities would need to apply for the more costly and time consuming individual 

39 ld. at 1045. 40 ld. at 1044. 41 Testimony of Jack Field, Owner Lazy JF Cattle Co. at U.S. House of Representatives Committee on 

Small Business Hearing entitled "Will EPA's Waters of the United States Rule Drown Small Businesses?"", 

May 29, 2014 at http://smallbusilless.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventiD~3 73099. 42 79 Fed. Reg. at 22, 194; Notice of Availability Regarding the Exemption From Permitti11g Under 

Section 404(f)(l)(A) of the Clean Water Act to Certain Agricultural 

Conservatio11 Practices, 79 Fed. Reg. 22,2 76. 43 Reissuance ofNationwide Pennits, 77 Fed. Reg. 10195 (February 21, 2012). 

- 7-
81 

permits. This is a direct cost imposed solely as a result of the changes to the definition of 

the term "waters of the United States" proposed in this rule. 

These examples, as well as comments that Advocacy has received from small entities in 

other industries, demonstrate that the impact of the proposed rule will be direct. 

Therefore, the agencies are required to measure the impacts ofthe rule and to determine 

whether those impacts are significant for a substantial number of small entities. 

C. The Rule Will Have a Significant Economic Impact on Small Businesses 

The economic analysis clearly indicates that this rule is likely to have a significant 

economic effect on small businesses. In the analysis, the agencies examine the anticipated 

changes to permitting under CWA Section 404 (development projects that discharge 

dredge or fill materials into waters of the U.S.). They find that in current practice 98 

percent of streams and 98.5 percent of wetlands meet the definition of waters of the 

U.S.;44 under the revised definition these figures rise to 100 percent.45 They find zero 

percent of "other waters" (the seventh category in the revised definition) to be covered in 

current practice, but the revised definition would cover 17 percent of this category.46 The 

agencies evidence an understanding that this increase in jurisdiction will lead to greater 

costs stating, "A change in assertion ofCWAjurisdiction could result in indirect costs of 

implementation ofthe CWA 404 program: a greater share of development projects would 

intersect with jurisdictional waters, thus requiring the sponsors of those additional 

projects to obtain and comply with CW A 404 permits."47 

The agencies estimate that CWA 404 permit costs would increase between $19.8 million 

and $52.0 million dollars annually, and they estimate that section 404 mitigation costs 

would rise between $59.7 million and $113.5 million annually.48 These amounts do not 

reflect additional possible cost increases associated with other Clean Water Act 

programs, such as Section 402 permitting or Section 311 oil spill prevention plans.49 The 

agencies further state that the economic analysis done with respect to the 404 program 

increase is likely not representative of the changes that may occur with respect to 402 and 

311 permitting, 50 leaving small businesses without a clear idea of the additional costs 

they are likely to incur for these Clean Water Act programs. 

The economic analysis also singles out a particular class of businesses potentially 

afiected by the revised definition, yet fails to evaluate any of these potential effects. EPA 

acknowledges that "a large portion of traditional 402 permit holders are located nearby 

large water sources to support their operations."51 The agencies do not identity how many 

44 Economic Analysis of Proposed Revised Definition of Waters of the United States, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 11 (March 2014). 

45 !d. 

46ld. 

47 ld. at 13. Advocacy disagrees with the agencies· assertion that this cost is indirect (see above). 48 Id. at 16. 49 ld. at 12. 

50 !d. 

51 ld. 

- 8-
82 

of these businesses may be small nor do they discuss the expected impact of this rule on 

them. Yet this proposed rule would directly affect those small businesses that may be 

located next to large water sources and which fall within the 3 percent of waters that will 

be newly included in the definition "waters of the U.S." 

Concerns raised by small businesses as well as the agencies' own economic analysis both 

indicate that small businesses will see a cost increase as a result of the revised definition. 

The EPA and the Corps have obligations under OMB guidance, and the RFA to measure 

and communicate this increase. Their certification of no small business impact is 

inappropriate in light of this information. Because of this probable small business impact, 

the RF A requires the agencies to complete an IRF A and a SBAR panel. 

Conclusion 

Advocacy and small businesses are extremely concerned about the rule as proposed. The 

rule will have a direct and potentially costly impact on small businesses. The limited 

economic analysis which the agencies submitted with the rule provides ample evidence of 

a potentially significant economic impact. Advocacy advises the agencies to withdraw the 

rule and conduct a SBAR panel prior to promulgating any further rule on this issue. 

If we can be of any further assistance, please contact Kia Dennis, Assistant Chief 

Counsel, at (202) 205-6936. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Is! Winslow Sargeant, Ph.D. 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

Is/ Kia Dennis 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

Is/ Stephanie Fekete 

Legal Fellow 

- 9-
83 

Senator ROUNDS. And with this, this was a letter that was sent 

to the EPA in October 2014 requesting that the EPA withdraw the 

proposed Waters of the U.S. Rule, the WOTUS Rule, and reevaluate the impacts the rule would have on American small business. 

Now, this is a Federal agency requesting the EPA take a second 

look at a proposed rule. 

The EPA refused this request and issued the final rule that we 

have today. 

What are your thoughts on this? And would you, if you are approved and become the next Administrator of the EPA, would you 

take a second look at whether or not they had a valid reason for 

having the Waters of the U.S. Rule considered again? 

Mr. PRUITT. I think, Senator, the response of the 6th Circuit and 

where we are presently with litigation, there is definitely a need 

to address that on a prospective basis. Historically, as you know, 

under the Clean Water Act, and even before the Clean Water was 

passed, waters of the United States equaled navigable waters, navigable in fact waters. We know from a couple of cases that led up 

to the most recent case, Rapanos, that the Clean Water Act is 

something more than navigable in fact. But what that more is has 

to be determined and assessed. 

So, as I indicated earlier to another Senator’s question, the most 

important thing is to provide certainty, to make sure that the 

Clean Water Act helps those at the State level know where the 

boundaries are, where they have jurisdiction and where they don’t, 

so that we can have regulations that are fair and equitable, and 

uncertainty is not created. 

Senator ROUNDS. In the lawsuits that you brought against the 

Environmental Protection Agency on behalf of the State of Oklahoma, would it be fair to say that a number of those are based 

upon the Environmental Protection Agency failing to follow its own 

rules and the promulgation of those rules? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, Senator. I think whether it is the MATS case 

or the Clean Power Plan case or the WOTUS case, or a multitude 

of cases, the courts have agreed that the EPA has exceeded its authority; that the EPA has not acted within the framework that 

Congress has established in performing the role that it is supposed 

to perform. That is the reason I mentioned in my opening statement that process matters, rule of law matters, federalism matters. 

Those issues matter because Congress has said so. It is Congress 

who gives authority to the EPA. The EPA is an administrative 

agency, it is not a legislative body. So it is important for that agency to act within the framework, within the substantive authority 

that Congress has provided it in doing its job. 

In leading the EPA, if confirmed, I think if I do that effectively, 

it will provide confidence, certainty to those that are regulated to 

know what is expected to them, and improve our air and improve 

our water because of that. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Rounds. 

Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This morning, NOAA, NASA has declared 2016 the hottest year 

in the 137-year-old record that has been kept. Donald Trump has 
84 

called global warming a hoax caused by the Chinese. Do you agree 

that global warming is a hoax? 

Mr. PRUITT. I do not, Senator. 

Senator MARKEY. So Donald Trump is wrong? 

Mr. PRUITT. I do not believe that climate change is a hoax. 

Senator MARKEY. OK. That is important for the President to 

hear. 

Mr. Pruitt, you have made a career working on behalf of the fossil fuel industry to eviscerate regulations designed to protect public 

health and the environment. You have sued the EPA 19 times to 

stop clean air and water protections. Eight of those cases are still 

ongoing, including your litigation that challenges critical rules that 

reduce levels of hazardous smog, mercury, and carbon pollution. 

As EPA Administrator, you would be in a position to serve as 

plaintiff, defendant, judge, and jury on these ongoing eight lawsuits, and that would be wrong. In your ethics agreement you have 

said that you would not participate in any matter that is ongoing 

litigation within 1 year. But Mr. Pruitt, isn’t it correct that these 

lawsuits may very well continue for much longer than 1 year? 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, Senator, I have the letter from the ethics counsel at the EPA, and the 1-year time period is intended to address 

covered entities, entities that I served in a chairmanship or an officer capacity. The Southern Theological Seminary, the Windows 

Ministry, those entities are covered entities. So if there is a matter 

that arises before the EPA within a 1-year period, a particular 

matter, a specific case that involves those entities, then the recusal 

would be in order. But that is really the focus of the 1-year 

timeline. 

Senator MARKEY. So will you agree to recuse yourself from those 

lawsuits which you brought as the Attorney General of Oklahoma 

against the EPA, not just for 1 year, but for the entirety of the time 

that you are the Administrator of the EPA? Will you commit to 

doing that? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, for clarity, I think that it is important to 

note that the 1-year time period, again, is for those covered entities 

that were highlighted in the EPA letter. 

With respect to pending litigation, the EPA ethics counsel has indicated, with respect to particular matters and specific parties, 

there will be an opportunity to get counsel from the EPA at that 

point to determine what steps could be taken to avoid appearances 

of impropriety. 

Senator MARKEY. Are you saying that you will not recuse yourself from the actual matters which you are suing the EPA on right 

now as Attorney General of Oklahoma for the time that you are the 

head of the EPA? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am not saying that at all, Senator. 

Senator MARKEY. You are saying that. Will you recuse yourself? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am saying that the EPA ethics counsel has indicated those cases will require a review by the EPA ethics counsel, 

and if it involves a particular matter with a specific party then 

recusal would potentially be in order, and I would follow the guidance and counsel of EPA ethics. 

Senator MARKEY. This is a clear line for the American public, 

given your record from Oklahoma in suing the EPA on all of these 
85 

matters, that if you don’t agree to recuse yourself, then again you 

become plaintiff, defendant, judge, and jury on the cases that you 

are bringing right now as Attorney General of Oklahoma against 

the EPA, and the EPA is for all of the people of the United States, 

not just the fossil fuel industry of Oklahoma. So you are not committing—and I think that is a big mistake, Mr. Pruitt—to recuse 

yourself from those cases. It is critical. 

Moreover, you also are in a position to initiate regulations that 

could overturn smog protections, carbon pollution protections that 

are right now on the books that you are suing as Attorney General 

of Oklahoma to overturn. Would you commit to not regulating, promulgating new regulations in any of the areas where you right now 

are suing the EPA? Would you make a commitment that you would 

recuse yourself from doing that? 

Mr. PRUITT. Let me be clear, Senator, because we talked about 

this in your office, and I very much enjoyed the conversation that 

we had there in this area that we talked about. I have every willingness and desire to recuse, as directed by EPA ethics counsel, 

and if directed to do so, I will in fact do so, to recuse from those 

cases. There is a difference, as you know, between pending litigation in a particular matter with specific parties and prospective 

rulemaking. Rulemaking goes through a process. 

Senator MARKEY. What the American people are expecting here 

is the EPA doesn’t turn into every polluter’s ally. The only way to 

ensure that is for you to recuse yourself from the cases that you 

have brought, because most of them are to overturn the clean air, 

clean water, smog regulations. So to create an appearance of independence, it is critical that you recuse yourself; otherwise—— 

Mr. PRUITT. And I will—— 

Senator MARKEY [continuing]. Otherwise, honestly, people are 

going to think that it is not just the fox guarding the hen house, 

it is the fox destroying the hen house, because you haven’t 

distanced yourself from the actual litigation that you have initiated 

on most of the key issues that you are now going to have responsibility for protecting in terms of the public health of the entire country. 

Mr. PRUITT. And Senator, I can say to you unequivocally I will 

recuse, as directed by EPA ethics counsel. 

Senator MARKEY. And I am saying to you that you should just 

start out saying I am going to recuse myself from anything that relates to any litigation that I have initiated as the Attorney General 

of Oklahoma that questions the clean air, clean water, climate 

change, smog, or mercury protections which are right now on the 

books that the EPA is honored to protect. And if you don’t do that, 

then we are going to have a fundamental conflict of interest that 

is presented by your presence as the Administrator of the EPA. It 

just gets down to being a matter as simple as that. 

Senator BARRASSO. The Senator’s time has expired. Thank you, 

Senator Markey. 

For clarification, will you fully follow the advice of the EPA ethics counsel? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 
86 

Just for additional clarification, regarding conflicts of interest, I 

note the letter to this Committee on January 4th that I am submitting to the record. ‘‘We’’—this is the Office of Government Ethics— 

‘‘believe that this nominee is in compliance with applicable laws 

and regulations governing conflicts of interest.’’ 

And then there was a letter yesterday from Walter Shaub, Director, Office of Government Ethics, responding to a letter from Senator Carper and other EPW Democrats regarding Attorney General 

Pruitt and potential conflicts of interest, and they say, ‘‘If the Office of Government Ethics has transmitted a certified financial disclosure report and an ethics agreement to the Senate,’’—which they 

have—‘‘it means the Office of Government Ethics is satisfied that 

all financial conflicts of interest have been identified and resolved.’’ 

Senator Ernst. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
87 

OGE Letter 

Any questions relating to potential conflicts for Attorney General 

Pruitt have been fully addressed by the Office of Government Ethics. 

~January 17, 2017 Walter Shaub, Director, Office of Government 

Ethics, responded to a letter from Senator Carper and other EPW 

Democrats regarding Scott Pruitt and potential conflicts of interest: 

"[l)JOGE has transmitted a certified financial disclosure report 

and an ethics agreement to the Senate, it means that OGE is 

satisfied that all financial conflicts of interest have been 

identified and resolved." 

This follows the Attorney General Pruitt's OGE financial disclosure 

report and ethics agreement that was transmitted to this Committee 

on January 4, 2017. The transmittal letter states: 

"[W]e [OGE) believe that this nominee is in complia nee with 

applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts of interest" 

I ask unanimous consent to enter the two OGE letters into the 

record. 
88 

UNITE:D 5'-ATES OFFICE OF 

GOVERNMENT ETHICS 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Envil'onment and 

Public Works 

United States Senate 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin 

United States Senator 

509 Han Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Bernard Sanders 

United States Senator 

332 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Ho110rnble Sheldon Whitehouse 

United States Senator 

530 Hart Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 205 J 0 

The Honorable Jeff Merkley 

United States Senator 

313 Hart Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

January 17,2017 

The Honorable Kirsten Gillibrnnd 

United States Senator 

478 Russell Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Cory A. Booker 

United States Senator 

359 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 205! 0 

The Honorable Edward Markey 

United States Senator 

255 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Tammy Duckworth 

United States Senator 

SD·G 12 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Ranking Member Carper and Senatot'S Cardin, Sanders, Whitehouse, Merkley, Gitlibrand, 

Booker, Markey, and Duckworth: 

This responds to your letter of January 12, 20! 7, requesting specific infonnation 

regarding the ethics review of a named individual who has been announced as an intended 

nomh1ee of the President-elect. The U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) generally avoids 

providing information about individual nominees; but believes that the information regarding the 

nominee financial disclosure process provided below is responsive to your request. 

12011-:IM YORK IIVH ~W·SUfl'H 50fi•WASHINGTON })C•2<1005 * * 
89 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper, et al. 

Page 2 

It is necessary to avoid formally sharing information regarding OGE's work on individual 

nominations whenever releasing such infmmation could undermine the purposes of the nominee 

ethics review process. As described below, preclearing a nominee financial disclosure report 

involves an extensive deliberative process between OGE, the nominee, and agency ethics 

officials. Accordingly, OGE adheres to this nondisclosure practice as closely as possible, 

particularly if other information may satisfy the interests underlying the request. 

In this instance, additional information about OGE's work and the nomination process is 

provided below to address the concerns underlying your request. As explained below, if OGE 

has transmitted a ccrti!ied financial disclosure report and an ethics agreement to the Senate, it 

means that OGE is satis!icd that all financial connicts of interest have been identified and 

resolved. Note that OGE is focused on financial conflicts ofinterest and not on what might be 

described as "intellectual conflicts of interest" or the political viewpoints of nominees, which are 

often the subject of media and public scrutiny of nominees but which are outside the scope of 

OGE's review. OGE's determination is based on the information contained in the report, the 

agency's advice regarding possible financial conflicts of interest, and whether the report 

complies with the Ethics in Government Act and government ethics regulations, all in light of the 

agency's functions and the nominee's proposed duties. 

A nominee submits a draft public financial disclosure report (OGE F01m 278e) through 

OGE's electronic filing system (Integrity). Ethics officials review the draft financial disclosure 

report, ask follow-up questions, and provide instructions for revising the report. Multiple rounds 

of questions and revisions are almost always exchanged before a report meets the complex 

disclosure requirements of the Ethics in Government Act. 

We note that the disclosure requirements of the OGE Form 278e are dictated by the 

Ethics in Government Act. 1 Moreover, as your letter correctly stated, OGE's ethics review 

focuses on a nominee's personal financial interests, not a nominee's history of political 

solicitations and activity. Your let.ter asked about reportable positions and "affiliations." 

Nominees are required to report certain positions held, during the current calendar year and 

during the two-year period preceding such calendar year, as an officer, director, trustee, partner, 

proprietor, representative, employee, or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, 

partnership, or other business enterprise, any nonprofit organization, any labor organization, or 

any educational or other institution other than the United States.2 They are not, however, 

required to report positions held in any religious, social, fraternal, or political entity or any 

positions solely of an honorary nature. 3 OGE's view is that a position with a political action 

committee, for example, qualifies for this exclusion from disclosure by virtue of being political 

in nature. 

The exclusion does not extend, however, to earned income from an excluded position, 

which must be disclosed in Part 2 of the OGE Form 278e. Nominees must report salaries, fees, 

commissions, wages, and any other compensation for personal services (other than from 

1 SeeS U.S.C. app. § 102. 

'SeeS U.S.C. app. § 102(a)(6)(A). 

'See id. 
90 

The Honorable TI1omas R. Carper, et al. 

Page 3 

United States Government employment) in excess of$200 from any one source, including 

income from positions that need not be reported in Pa1t I of the OGE Form 278e.4 

Your letter also asked about reportable gifts. Nominees are not required to complete the 

portion of the rep01t that cover-s gifts and travel reimbursements. 5 

Each nominee is legally responsible for ensuring that the information he or she reports is 

"true, complete and con-ect."6 The financial disclosure system does not require or authorize 

either OGE or agency ethics officials to independently investigate or verify the infom1ation that a 

nominee repotts; however, OGE and agency ethics officials recognize that the reporting 

requirements are complex and work diligently to help each nominee to fully comply with the 

requirements based on the information the nominee provides. OGE and agency ethics officials 

review a nominee's rep01t for internal inconsistencies and self-evident omissions. OGE staff also 

asks extensive questions that lead to more complete reporting. 

For this work, OGE's staff draws on decades of collective experience in reviewing 

financial disclosure reports to help filers to identify the types of assets, positions, and liabilities 

that filers commonly overlook or forget to report. Examples of the types of items that OGE staff 

discusses with filers are found in sample checklists on OGE's website. 7 Multiple rounds of 

questions and revisions are usually needed before. a nominee's report can be finalized. This back 

and forth process can take weeks or, in the case of extremely wealthy individuals, sometimes 

mond1s. Through focused effort, OGE and agency ethics officials help nominees complete their 

reports as quickly as possible without sactificing quality. 

Once the nominee confirms that the report contains all of his or her legally reportable 

information, as a result of the revisions discussed above, OGE and agency ethics officials 

analyze the information contained in the report to identify potential conflicts of interest with the 

duties of the position for which the individual is being nominated. OGE and agency ethics 

officials then work together to prepare an ethics agreement. The ethics agreement outlines the 

specific steps a nominee will take to avoid the identified conflicts of interest and ensures that the 

nominee will be able to carry out his or her duties as a Presidential appointee. OGE and agency 

ethics officials draft each ethics agreement using standardized language from OGE's ethics 

agreement guide, which is tailored to the nominee's uni<Jue circumstances. 8 The nominee must 

agree to take the steps outlined in the agreement to resolve his or her conflicts of interest; for 

example, resignation of positions, divestiture of holdings, or recusal. 

When the nominee has confirmed that the report is "true, complete and correct" and has 

agreed to take the steps outlined in the ethics agreement to resolve the identified conflicts of 

interest, OGE can begin to finalize its work. OGE ensures that it is satisfied that the report is 

• &e S C.F.R. § 2634.J02(a)(l). 

'SeeS C.f.R. ~ 2634.304(o}. 

• Public financial discloSI!ro roport li!crs musl make the follo\\ing certification: "'I certify lbat lhe stlllementa that I bave made in 

this report nrc true. complete and correct to the best of my knowledge.'' See OGE Form 278c, at I. 1 'lllcse chccklim are IMiilablc online at 

bliJ.1f':IIJI:\''t·"P~·i\'!YiW"I'O(il' ..• ••>l/U/UC')}~t·~~~(•)\(ltiJ!~j~:t~~.~-~ll.'!.~Ql.lW!!ilt15.Ul..I;JJll!IIJ"llo1%.lli.l)l~£1.t!.>u~~;l!!'ill<.ti>UJ;, 

1

.1r. 7

rlw OGE PAS NominL-c Ethics Agreement Guide is avuilablc online at 

l>!~~!lwww.ozc.f!,!.>YIWcl•.()g••·•.••IIKR~'<'•r~Mil.!l:!lli!J.ill.'l!"'..Jillli£.'!:':6ll(l;!:J.lll!Jll:ilil!iltlr.ill1~..L!'lm:<ll. 
91 

The Honorable Thomas R. Cal'per, et al. 

Page4 

complete and the ethics agreement has resolved all ethics issues. OGE then prcclears the report 

(i.e., provides staff-level assurance that it is cleared tor certification by OOE's Director). After 

OGE has preclcarcd the report, the nominee must log back into the electronic filing system and 

formally file the repmt by certifying that the information in the finalized report is correct. Ethics 

officials at the agency to which the nominee Is being nominated then review the report If they 

are satisfied with the report, they cettify the report and send it to OGE with an opinion indicating 

that all conflicts of intet·est have been resolved. Next, OGE reviews the report for final 

certification, cettifies the report, and transmits both the repott and the ethics agreement to the 

Senate. 

Your letter asked whether there are "other avenues" that will require the nominee to 

disclose additional information to the Designated Agency Ethics Official (DAEO), if confirmed. 

When OGE certifies a report, it means that both the DAEO and OGE are satisfied that all 

potential conflicts of interest apparent at the present time have been identified and addressed. 

However, the nominee financial disclosure repott is a snapshot in time. If confirmed, the 

nominee, after becoming an appointee, is subject to periodic transaction, annual, and tetmination 

financial disclosure reporting requirements.9 

In addition, promptly after appointment, the nominee-now an appointee-must 

complete an initial ethics briefing. The initial ethics briefing must include the following 

content: 10 

(I) If the individual acquired new financial interests reportable 

under section 102 of the [Ethics in Government] Act after filing 

the nominee financial disclosure report, the agency ethics official 

must appropriately address the potential for conflicts of interest 

arising from those financial interests. 

(2) The agency ethics official must counsel the individual on 

the basic recusal obligation under 18 U.S.C. 208(a). 

(J) The agency ethics official must explain the recusal 

obligl!tions and other commitments addressed in the individual's 

ethics agreement and ensure that the individual understands what ls 

specifically required in order to comply with each of them, 

including any deadline for compliance. The ethics official and the 

individual must establish a process by which the recusals will be 

achieved, which may consist of a screening arrangement or, when 

the DAEO deems appropriate, vigilance on the part of the 

individual with regard to recusal obligations as they arise in 

particular matters. 

'See 5 U.S.C. opp. ~§ IOI(d), JOI(c). 103{1). 10 S C.F.R. § 2638.30S!O (2017). The recently updated "'!ltdations IllS C.F.lt pnrl2638 are not yet in print b11t·erc available 

online allmn:lf~).\Y.~).c~·!_i·,xv,:(:t.f.i~. 

binltc\ri!;wl\(}]{'illl>. Ill ~11 l ~:K•II.bh 7~17 !K?lki)?P.I!Zf~H.3J\Illli~Jf.!l!ll!r.:.f tlliJ~..!dl:.tiU.{},JI!,l!l!.,;:U.l,6.l~ l3llS. 
92 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper, et al. 

Page 5 

(4) The agency ethics official must provide the individual with 

instructions and the deadline for completing initial ethics training, 

unless the individual completes the initial ethics training either 

before or during the ethics briefing. 

In addition, the nominee must complete new employee ethics training and, later, annual ethics 

training. 11 An appointee must also demonstrate compliance with the ethics agreement signed as 

part of the nomination process. The DAEO works closely with the appointee to ensure full 

compliance. 12 OGE tracks ethics agreement compliance by requiring the DAEO to notify OGE 

when compliance efforts are complete. Finally, an appointee has an ongoing obligation to 

comply with ethics statutes and regulations, including the criminal conflict-of-interest laws, the 

Ethics in Government Act, and the Standard~· of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the E;!ceculive 

Branch. 

In other words, even if a nominee has fully complied with the requirements of the 

nominee financial disclosure pmcess, it is possible for that nominee, once confirmed, to face 

potential conflicts involving interests that were not identified or addressed in his or her financial 

disclosure repmt or ethics agreement. This potential is the reason for the executive branch 

requirements for briefings, training, ongoing disclosure, and consultations with agency ethics 

officials. Execulive branch officials, especially those at the highest levels, should regularly seek 

the advice of their agency ethics officials in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest when 

perfonning the important duties with which the public has entrusted them. 

I hope you have found the information provided regarding the nominee financial 

disclosure process helpful. 

cc: The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

United States Senate 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

11 See 5 C.P.R. §§ 2638.304, 2638.308 (20 17). 11 See 5 C.F.R. ~ 263R.I04(c)(l3) (2017). 

Sincerely, 

WALTER 

SHAUB 

~11!7Jtdbw\I.'~Uit'HM• 

Ok.o-UI.fO•II.'\I!ibl. ... t• ... ..,~.-~( ..... ~lRI!WII. 

o.'.D4.4Moal.lli!!1-o:-U~ft~ 

-

O..·lDt'J•tllH·lU)~ 

Walter M. Shaub, Jr. 

Director 
93 

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF 

GOVERNMENT ETHICS ~*EW AJL 

The Honorable Jrunes M. Tnhofe 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment nnd 

Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Mr. Cheinnan: 

JAN-~ 2017 

In accordance with the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, I enclose a copy of the 

financial disclosure report filed by Edward Scott Pruitt. President-Elect Trump has announced 

his intention to nominate Mr. Pruitt for the position of Administrator, Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

We have reviewed the report and have obtained advice from the agency concerning ElllY 

possible conflict in light of it.q f\mctions and the nominee's proposed duties. Also enclosed is an 

ethics agreement outlining the actions that the nominee will undertake to avoid conflicts of 

interest. Unless a date for compliance is indicated in the ethics agreement. the nominee must 

fully comply within three months of confumation with any action specified in the ethics 

agreement. 

Based thereon, we believe that this nominee is in comp!iance With applicable laws and 

regulations governing conflicts ofinterest. 

Enclosures 

17.01 New York Avenu•, NW, Suite SOO I Washington, DC 20005 

www.oge.gov 
94 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Thank you, Attorney General Pruitt, for appearing in front of us 

today. I enjoyed our conversation, both one-on-one and then in a 

group setting as well, and I would like to go back and revisit our 

discussion on the RFS. As you know, Iowa is home to 43 ethanol 

refineries. We are the largest producer of ethanol west or east of 

the Missouri River. 

President-elect Trump reiterated his support for biofuels while 

he was campaigning cross Iowa and all across the Midwest, and 

those areas of the country overwhelmingly supported his candidacy 

and led to his victory. And thank you for stating once again that 

you would honor his commitment to biofuels by carrying out the 

RFS as intended by Congress. 

Policy certainty is key for economic growth, and this is something 

that we discussed in my office. Unfortunately, as a result of uncertainty surrounding the EPA’s renewable fuel volume targets in 

2014, 2015, and 2016, second generation biofuel investment decreased and proposed projects moved overseas. Fortunately, the 

EPA has recently changed its course and released updated volume 

targets for the RFS that meet the levels prescribed by Congress. 

If confirmed as Administrator, what will you do to continue to 

provide certainty so that investment can continue to happen right 

here at home in the United States? 

Mr. PRUITT. You know, Senator, as you indicated in our meeting, 

the importance of the infrastructure, the investment that has occurred in reliance upon the law was passed in 2005 and updated 

in 2007, and as I indicated earlier to Senator Fischer’s question, 

the latitude discretion that has been given to the EPA Administrator with respect to waiving those statutory targets should be judiciously used. It shouldn’t be automatic; it should be something 

that the EPA Administrator seeks to comply with and adhere to because of the will of this body. 

So I think those waivers obviously are in order, but with respect 

to market conditions we have less consumption today, more fuelefficient vehicles. Market conditions have changed since 2005, but 

despite that the EPA Administrator should not use that to undermine or to somehow put into question the commitments made by 

this body in the Renewable Fuel Standards statute. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you for your commitment to the RFS and 

the intention of Congress. 

I also want to touch on an issue you mentioned in your testimony, which is the level of fear and distrust many folks have of 

the EPA. When I am home in Iowa I host town halls all across the 

State and just want to hear what is going on in their communities, 

and what I hear, without fail, at these town halls is that folks are 

frustrated with the EPA and the gotcha mentality that has 

stemmed from the Agency. My constituents tell me the EPA is out 

to get them rather than work with them, and there is a huge lack 

of trust between many of my constituents and the EPA. And if we 

take a look specifically at the WOTUS rule, Iowans truly feel that 

the EPA ignored their comments and concerns, threw them under 

the rug and then just moved forward. 

We know now that the EPA relied on gimmicky mass e-mails and 

social media events to prop up their message, and then they used 
95 

those tactics to insinuate that anyone who had reasonable concerns 

about the WOTUS rule are somehow in favor of dirty water, which 

is absolutely ridiculous. And this type of culture that was created 

under the Obama administration has no place, has no place here. 

So, Mr. Pruitt, what do you plan to do in your first days as the 

Administrator to improve the relationships EPA has with the hardworking folks across the country? 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, Senator, as I indicated in my opening statement, this paradigm that we live within today, that if you are proenergy, you are anti-environment, if you are pro-environment, you 

are anti-energy, is something that I think is just a false narrative. 

We can do better than that. In fact, this country has shown for decades that we can grow our economy and be a good steward of our 

air, land, and water, and we need to get back to that. 

Cooperative federalism is at the heart of many of the environmental statutes that have been passed by this body, and the reason 

for that is it is the States, many times, that have the resources, 

the expertise, and understanding what the unique challenges are 

for the environment and improving our water and our air. It is not 

that they don’t care about it. Senator Whitehouse indicated a devolution of authority to the States would create a problem. That is 

not what I am advocating. And I think we hear in the marketplace 

we need a partnership, a true partnership between the EPA in performing its role along with the States in performing theirs. And if 

we had that partnership, as opposed to punishment, as opposed to 

uncertainty and duress that we currently see in the marketplace, 

I think we will have better air, better water quality as a result. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you. I look forward to that partnership 

and transparency. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Duckworth. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

Mr. Pruitt, I want to clarify your response to Senator Ernst on 

this whole congressional intent when it comes to the RFS. What I 

want to know, and what the people of Illinois, we are also a great 

producer of ethanol, what we need to know is where exactly you 

stand on the RFS. Are you the Attorney General who only 3 years 

ago sided with big oil to slam the RFS? You said that RFS was ‘‘unworkable’’ and also that it was a ‘‘flawed program.’’ 

So I am a little confused by what you are saying today. Are you 

that Mr. Pruitt, or are you the Scott Pruitt today who is saying all 

the right things in this confirmation hearing and in these meetings 

to try to reassure pro-RFS States by repeating nice sounding, but 

ultimately vague and hollow mantra that, if confirmed, you would 

enforce the RFS law as written by Congress? 

As you and I are quite well aware of, such a statement essentially dodges the critical issue for biofuels producers and workers, 

because under the law the EPA has considerable discretion to adjust the renewable volume obligation in a manner that you would 

argue is contrary to congressional intent, yet may be compliant 

with the explicit letter of the statute. So, as EPA Administrator, 

you could still technically be in compliance with Congress, with the 
96 

law, but actually be working against it; and your answers today 

have not clarified that. 

So my question to you, Mr. Pruitt, is this: Which specific actions 

has EPA taken since 2007 while administering the RFS that you, 

in your view, are not consistent with congressional intent? Can you 

name any? 

Mr. PRUITT. Thank you, Senator. The Administrator and the 

EPA routinely misses the statutory targets in publishing those 

each year, creating great uncertainty in the marketplace. In fact, 

in some years they have missed the timeline as far as submitting 

those targets by over a year; in some cases over 2 years. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. OK, so let me ask you this, then. Yes or 

no, do you believe that Congress intended for the RFS to increase 

the amount of renewable fuel blended in our Nation’s liquid transportation fuel supply, yes or no? 

Mr. PRUITT. Without question. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Without question. 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. All right. My second question, then, is—yes 

or no—do you believe Congress intended for the RFS to be a stable 

policy that drives private investment in the renewable energy industry? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. And finally, if confirmed, will you commit 

to opposing any and all proposals to move the point of obligation 

under the RFS program from refiners to blenders? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, as you know, the EPA is actually involved 

in a comment period on that very issue, and to prejudge the outcome of that I think would be—I would not be able to do that. 

There are many aspects of the program, from the trading program, 

the monitoring of fraud in the system, that need to be better administrated by the EPA. These have been administration issues. 

The EPA has created uncertainty. We talked about—a minute ago, 

with the Senator—about the amount of investment that has gone 

into the infrastructure because of the 2005 law. Those individuals 

need to have certainty and confidence that the RFS is going to be 

enforced and administered pursuant to the desires of Congress. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Right. But if you were to do that, then you 

would actually have to answer yes because to move the RFS program from refiners to blenders is actually one of those ways that 

you can actually undermine the RFS standards as intended by 

Congress, which you yourself just now said was intended to increase the amount of biofuels blended into the fuel supply of the 

United States. 

This is my problem. On the one hand your entire track record 

shows you to be someone who opposes the RFS, and yet here in 

front of Congress and in meetings with Senators you are giving 

these vague answers that sound right when it comes to the RFS 

but really opens all sorts of back doors for you to oppose the Renewable Fuel Standard, and that is very troublesome because all 

across the Midwest—you know, for those of us who have fought to 

strengthen national security by lessening our country’s dangerous 

dependence on foreign oil, I am really incredibly concerned about 

the future of the RFS on American-produced biofuels under a Scott 
97 

Pruitt-led EPA. And I am also incredibly concerned about what you 

are going to do in terms of protecting the environment. 

In your answer to one of my colleagues about what the role of 

the EPA is, what is the job of the EPA, one of the first questions 

you got, you spent 5 minutes talking before you actually said protect the environment. You talked all about reducing EPA’s influence over States for a good 5 minutes before you actually got to the 

environment. And then for my farmers, my corn and soybean producers for my biofuel industry, the RFS is critical in order to continue that. And I would rather burn American-made Americangrown corn and soybean in my gas tank then I would oil from the 

Middle East. I have already been to a war fought over oil in the 

Middle East, and I don’t intend to allow us to continue to do that, 

which is why the RFS is so critical not just for the jobs in Illinois, 

not just to support Illinois agriculture, but for our national security 

when it comes to where we are going to get our energy supply. 

I am out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. 

Mr. PRUITT. If I may, Senator, let me say to you the role of the 

Administrator of the EPA is to enforce and administer the RFS 

program to carry out the objectives of that statute. Those targets 

that have been put in that statute by this body need to be respected. The discretion authority, the waiver authority of the Administrator needs to be judiciously used to address those concerns 

that we talked about. 

So I don’t want you to have any concern about the intent, objective, or will, if confirmed, of carrying out the RFS mandate or the 

statute in its whole. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. That very answer concerns me because you 

have not actually said that you are going to stick with it. 

Senator BARRASSO. I would like to submit for the record two. 

One, a letter from the American Farm Bureau Federation which 

strongly supports the nomination of Scott Pruitt as Administrator 

of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and urges a vote in 

favor of his confirmation. The second is a letter from the Democrat 

Attorney General of the State of Arkansas, former Democrat Attorney General, Dustin McDaniel, who has this to say about Attorney 

General Scott Pruitt’s work on the stem phosphorus levels in the 

Illinois River watershed. He said, ‘‘Recent press accounts regarding 

these efforts unfairly mischaracterize the work that was done by 

General Pruitt and his team. He was a staunch defender of sound 

science and good policy as appropriate tools to protect the environment of his State. I saw firsthand how General Pruitt was able to 

bridge political divides and manage multiple agency agendas to 

reach an outcome that was heralded by most credible observers as 

both positive and historic.’’ 

[The referenced information follows:] 
98 

... A.\\IJ~IC\.'\ L\H:\IBLRL\l' rEOERATION' 

600 Maryla"" Avo. SW I Suite 1000W I WaaN<lglon. DC 20024 

January 4, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6176 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6175 

Dear Senator Barrasso and Senator Carper: 

ph. 202.406.3600 

f. 202.406.3606 

....... lb.D<fj 

The American Farm Bureau Federation strongly supports the nomination of Scott Pruitt as 

Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and urges you to vote in 

favor of his confirmation. 

Scott Pruitt is an ideal nominee for EPA Administrator for many reasons, but his nomination 

should command respect from Senators for one reason above all: he has profound respect for the 

laws written by Congress. In contesting EPA's 'waters of the US' (WOTUS) rule, Mr. Pruitt is 

in fact defending the bipartisan view of Congress that the agency has illegally overstepped its 

bounds and ignored the U.S. Supreme Court. Similarly, in the stance he has taken on the Clean 

Power Plan, he is defending Congress: in 2009, the Senate failed even to take up for debate the 

cap-and-trade plan narrowly approved by the House. Mr. Pruitt very soundly takes the view that 

Congress has not authorized the sweeping attempt by EPA to coerce action by the states. 

No one cares more about the responsible stewardship of our land, air, and water than American 

farmers and ranchers. Our livelihoods depend on it. In recent years, farmers and ranchers have 

suffered under burdensome, unnecessary and, too often, unlawful federal regulations 

promulgated by the EPA. We desperately need an administrator who understands the challenges 

our farmers and ranchers face in producing safe, wholesome and affordable food for our nation 

and the world. 

Some activists are attempting to characterize this as a debate over environmental goals. Nothing 

could be further from the truth. It is about respect for the law and for an agency that will live 

within the statutory programs Congress has authorized. AFBF supports Scott Pruitt for EPA 

administrator because he will restore respect for the law and enforce it fairly. Further, he 

understands how and when federal power should be exercised. We support him because he has 
99 

demonstrated a keen understanding oftbe devastating economic implications of federal 

overreach. 

Scott Pruitt will put the EPA back on track and ensure that federal decisions are based on sound 

science, not politics. He will produce a fair regulatory environment that respects the rule of law. 

We urge his coniilmation. 

Sincerely, 

//;f!-dwt 

Zippy Duvall 

President 
100 

Phosphorous levels in the Illinois River watershed 

Dustin McDaniel, the former Democratic Attorney General of the State 

of Arkansas, had this to say about Attorney General Scott Pruitt's work 

to stem phosphorous levels in the Illinois River watershed: 

"The resulting agreement reflects that Oklahoma enhanced, not relaxed, 

its enforcement of environmental protections. Scientists were appointed 

to establish the proper water quality metrics, establish a binding 

standard, and at no time were phosphorous abatement measures 

relaxed. It was an historic moment that demonstrated that cooperation 

in pursuit of environmental protection yielded better results than 

litigation. " lf 

"Recent press accounts regarding these efforts unfairly mischaracterize 

the work that was done by General Pruitt and his team. He was a 

staunch defender of sound science and good policy as appropriate tools 

to protect the environment of his state. I saw firsthand how General 

Pruitt was able to bridge political divides and manage multiple agency 

agendas to reach an outcome that was heralded by most credible 

observers as positive and historic. " sYcrnf( unanunous cmrsellt ro msert the McDamelletter mto the record. 

"" tert""- ).£1--J .)t.f.,... !<if 1 7-ol/ 
101 

MR MCDANIEL 

_ RICHARDSON &C !L~ALHOUN 

January 18, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chainnan, U.S. Senate Conunittee 

on Environment & Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Conunittee 

on Environment & Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

DUSTIN M<DANIEL • SCOTT RICHARDSON • BART CALHOUN 

Attorneys at Law /1020 W, Fourth St., Suite 410, Little Rock, AR 72201 

0/501.235.8336 f /501.588.2104 

Re: Attorney General Scott Pruitt's 

Nomination To Serve As Director of tile 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Dear Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the U.S. Senate 

Environment and Public Works Committee, 

My name is Dustin McDaniel. I am an attorney in Little Rock, Arkansas. I served as the 

Democratic Attorney General of the State of Arkansas from 2007-2015. During that time, I served 

for three years as the Co-Chair of the Democratic Attorneys General Association. I am a member 

of the Democratic National Committee and was a strong supporter of Secretary Clinton's campaign 

for President. I am grateful for your work on this committee. I believe in the core mission of the 

Environmental Protection Agency. I believe that climate change is real and overwhelmingly the 

result of human activity. I believe that the United States has a moral obligation to lead the world 

in shaping climate policy. These challenges in a hostile political environment will be acutely felt 

by the next director of the EPA. 

As you consider the nomination of my friend Scott Pruitt, I respectfully ask that you enter 

this letter into the record so that I may attempt to clarify what I believe to be unfair criticisms of 

the historic agreement negotiated between myself on behalf of the State of Arkansas and Attorney 

General Pruitt on behalf of the State of Oklahoma regarding water quality in the Illinois River 

watershed. 

Prior to the elections of General Pruitt or myself, Oklahoma grappled with Arkansas 

municipal water systems and Arkansas industry, primarily poultry companies, over increased 

phosphorous levels in the Illinois River watershed. Pollution was substantially impacting the water 

quality in one of Oklahoma's most scenic waterways. In 2003, an agreement was executed that 

would require that the phosphorus levels be reduced over the next I 0 years to a level .03 7 parts 

per million. As a result, all parties on both sides of the state line worked diligently to substantially 

improve the water quality. 
102 

Dustin McDaniel letter to U.S. Senate 

Environment and Public Works Committee 

Janwuy 17,2017 

Page2 of2 

At the same time, then-Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson filed suit using an 

out of state plaintiffs' firm against Arkansas's poultry industry. Many criticized the litigation as 

taking the focus away from the environment and placing it on money damages. The State of 

Oklahoma's outside counsel presented their case to U.S. District Court Judge Gregory Frizzell. 

Almost all the claims were dismissed by the court. The evidence was fully submitted to the judge 

in March of20l0 on the remaining question regarding injunctive relief. To this day, no ruling in 

that litigation has been handed down. 

As 2013, the ten-year deadline for the reduced phosphorus levels, was appmaching, two 

things were evident: 1.) despite huge improvements in water quality, the phosphorus levels in the 

river would not be at .03 7 parts per million before the deadline, and 2.) research into the standard 

itself called into question its origin and basis in hard science. 

The States of Arkansas and Oklahoma were facing a point oflitigating against one another 

(again) over this issue to the detriment of all concerned. I approached General Pruitt to ask if we 

could reach a solution that would protect the environment and demonstrate to our citizens that we 

were committed to working together on their behalf rather than litigating against one another using 

taxpayer dollars for lawyers instead of scientists. 

The resulting agreement reflects that Oklahoma enhanced, not relaxed, its enforcement of 

environmental protections. Scientists were appointed to establish the proper water quality metrics, 

establish a binding standard, and at no time were phosphorous abatement measures relaxed. It was 

an historic moment that demonstrated that cooperation in pursuit of environmental protection 

yielded better results than litigation. The resulting report was recently released from the 

commission and is available for your review. ~ee, www.ok.gov/conservationldocuments/IR%20 

2016.12.19%20Final%20Rtmort,pdf) 

Recent press accounts regarding these efforts unfairly mischaracterize the work that was 

done by General Pruitt and his team. He was a staunch defender of sound science and good policy 

as appropriate tools to protect the environment of his state. I saw firsthand how General Pruitt was 

able to bridge political divides and manage multiple agency agendas to reach an outcome that was 

heralded by most credible observers as both positive and historic. 

As I am sure that this committee will have questions about this matter, I wanted to take this 

opportunity to add facts and context to an accomplishment that should stand as a credit to General 

Pruitt's career and qualifications for this nomination. 

I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to submit this letter to you and to your committee 

and to be a part of the record in these proceedings. I thank you for your service to our nation. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dustin McDaniel 

DM/bw 
103 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Attorney General Pruitt, for your willingness to 

serve, and your family. I think everybody at the dais here realizes 

these really are family affairs that truly affect everyone. 

In recent years EPA has made it increasingly difficult for Arkansas to manage its delegated national pollutant discharge elimination system. Too often the permits, rulemakings, or other actions 

sent to EPA for review are returned with demands far more restrictive, additional expensive data collection is required, and other 

costly onerous requirements. New leadership at EPA has an opportunity to correct this coercive federalism and instead restore cooperative federalism as intended. The States have the expertise and 

local knowledge necessary to administer environmental programs. 

Mr. Pruitt, EPA has the opportunity to play a significant role in 

supporting a move back to cooperative federalism. Can you please 

explain how you plan to change the EPA’s State dynamic? 

My experience with EPA, and being on transportation in the 

House, being Ranking Member on water there, Ranking Member of 

the Senate is the EPA, their attitude is we are with you unless you 

come out with a finding that is contrary, and then we are going to 

do it our way. So can you address that? 

Mr. PRUITT. I think two things, Senator. One, as we indicated 

earlier, rule of law and making sure that the authority granted to 

the States under State implementation plans, delegation under certain clean water provisions, that that is respected. But also I think 

the EPA needs to provide more assistance to the States and work 

in partnership and be proactive. Those regional administrators that 

we have across the country need to be seen as partners and not adversaries. 

So I think restoring that confidence, restoring that relationship 

and seeking to do so is very, very important in carrying out this 

partnership that we know exists under the various environmental 

statutes. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. 

For the past 8 years, EPA has acted as a political arm of the 

Obama administration time and time again. We have seen rules 

developed not based on sound science but on political ideology. 

When rules have been released, States and private sector—and 

even Congress—have had trouble getting EPA to show the science 

that helped develop these rules. 

Under your leadership can we expect EPA to be more transparent, in other words, how the rules are being developed, the 

science behind them? And you have continued to allude to this, and 

I think it is so important, as Administrator of the EPA, can we 

count on you to base all of your decisions on the rule of law, not 

on the Administrator’s or even your own political ideology? 

Mr. PRUITT. Absolutely, Senator, in response to the latter point 

of your question. Public participation is important. There is a reason why, in rulemaking, that you take comment. There is a reason, 

as I indicated earlier to Senator Ernst, that you involve those that 

are impacted by rulemaking, because you want to understand the 

impact, both economically and otherwise, in the benefit of the environment as well as making sure that you craft rules and regula-
104 

tions that take all those things into consideration. So hearing the 

voices of all Americans in that rulemaking process, responding to 

those comments in the record before rules are finalized, transparency, objectivity, a commitment to process is very important, in 

my view, of restoring the confidence of the American people in the 

rulemaking processes that occur here in Washington, DC. 

Senator BOOZMAN. So, again, releasing the scientific data behind 

that would be something that you would very much support? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, Senator. 

Senator BOOZMAN. A problem with the EPA the EPW Committee 

has faced with the current Administration is a lack of communication. Time and time again EPA either did not respond to questions 

from Committee members or at the very least took months to respond. Under your leadership can we expect EPA to get Committee 

members answers in a timely fashion? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, Senator. As I indicated in my opening statement, listening is an important role of leadership, and listening to 

the voices of folks here in Congress. As I went through and met 

with many of you through this process, there were issues particular 

to your State that you made me aware of, and I, if confirmed as 

EPA Administrator, seek to be very active in listening to the needs 

with respect to your various States and respond to this body with 

respect to questions. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Let me just comment on the Arkansas-Oklahoma issue. I was the Congressman in that district, so I inherited 

that in 2001. I have been working on this for 15 years. And I appreciate you and Attorney General McDaniel doing a very good job 

of getting things done. On the other hand, the idea that somehow 

you were soft, in fact, I would argue that the agreement that was 

reached was way too restrictive and is probably one of the most restrictive watersheds as far as phosphorus requirements of anyplace 

in the United States. 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, as you know, Senator, in that process we actually selected a biologist from Baylor University to engage in a scientific study on what the phosphorus levels should be, the numeric 

quality of the water, and it was determined at the end of that process that .037 was the right standard and is now enforceable on 

both sides of the border for the first time in history. So it is a very 

important outcome. 

Senator BOOZMAN. No, I understand, and I commend you on the 

process. You know, the implication here is somehow, you know, you 

came up with a deal that was too soft, and if anything I would 

argue that it was perhaps a little bit too harsh. But I do appreciate 

the process. I know that you and our former Attorney General were 

able to do something that had been going on for decades. 

Mr. PRUITT. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. You have been at it now for about 2 hours. 

If you can stay with us ‘til we finish the first round of questioning; 

we have about five or six additional questions coming. 

Senator Harris is next, and then we will break at about 12:30, 

if that is all right. 

Senator CARPER. Can I make a unanimous consent request, Mr. 

Chairman? 

Senator BARRASSO. Yes, sir. 
105 

Senator CARPER. I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit for the record the legal brief against the Mercury and Air 

Toxics rule which Mr. Pruitt supported. Stated in that brief, I will 

just quote it, it says, ‘‘Human exposure to methylmercury resulting 

from coal-fired electric-generating utilities is exceedingly small.’’ 

That is the quote. 

Also ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a recent article that quotes, I think from the New York Times, it quotes a 40- 

year career employee of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality that has him saying these words: ‘‘Mr. Pruitt has 

advocated and stood up for the profits of businesses, be it poultry 

companies or the energy industry and other polluters, at the expense of people who have to drink the water or breathe the air.’’ 

Other statements have been introduced for the record saying 

quite a different thing about Mr. Pruitt. I think it is only fair to 

go to someone who has worked there for 40 years that has quite 

a different view than the one than the witness has expressed. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
106 

Nos. 14-46, 14-4 7, 14-49 

IN THE 

Supreme Court of the United States 

STATE OF MICHIGAN, ET AL., 

Petitioners, 

v. 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL., 

Respondents. 

On Writs of Certiorari to the 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit 

BRIEF OF PETITIONER 

UTILITY AIR REGULATORY GROUP, ET AL. 

F. WILLIAM BROWNELL 

(Counsel of Record) 

HENRY V. NICKEL 

LEE B. ZEUGIN 

ELIZABETH L. HORNER 

HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP 

2200 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW 

WASHINGTON,D.C.20037 

(202) 955-1500 

bbrownell@hunton.com 

January 20, 2015 Counsel for Petitioner 

[Counsel for Respondents in Support of Petitioner Joining 

in This Brief Are Listed Inside This Cover] 
107 

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS IN SUPPORT OF 

PETITIONER JOINING IN THIS BRIEF 

LESLIE SUE RITTS 

RITTS LAW GROUP, PLLC 

THE CARRIAGE HOUSE 

620 FORT WILLIAMS 

PARKWAY 

ALEXANDRIA, VA 22304 

(703) 823-2292 

LS Ritts@rittsla wgroup .com 

Counsel for American 

Public Power Association 

BART E. CASSIDY 

KATHERINE L. VACCARO 

MANKO, GOLD, KATCHER & 

Fox, LLP 

401 CITY A VENUE 

SUITE 901 

BALA CYNWYD, PA 19004 

(484) 430-5700 

bcassidy@mankogold.com 

Counsel for ARIPPA 

MICHAEL NASI 

JACKSON WALKER LLP 

100 CONGRESS AVENUE 

SUITE 1100 

AUSTIN, TX 78701 

(512) 236-2000 

mnasi@jw .com 

Counsel for Gulf Coast 

Lignite Coalition 

DENNIS LANE 

STINSON LEONARD STREET 

LLP 

1775 PENNSYLVANIA 

A VENUE, NW, SUITE 800 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 

(202) 785-9100 

dennis .lane@ 

stinsonleonard.com 

PARTHENIA B. EVANS 

STINSON LEONARD STREET 

LLP 

1201 WALNUT STREET 

SUITE 2900 

KANSAS CITY, MO 64106 

(816) 842-8600 

parthy .evans@ 

stinsonleonard.com 

Counsel for Kansas City 

Board of Public Utilities 

ERIC GROTEN 

VINSON & ELKINS LLP 

2801 VIAFORTUNA 

SUITE 100 

AUSTIN, TX 78746-7568 

(512) 542-8709 

egroten@velaw.com 

Counsel for White Stallion 

Energy Center, LLC 
108 

QUESTION PRESENTED 

Whether the Environmental Protection Agency 

unreasonably refused to consider costs in determining whether it is appropriate to regulate hazardous 

pollutants emitted by electric utilities. 
109 

11 

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING 

Petitioners in No. 14-46 are the States of Michigan, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas (ex rel. 

Dustin McDaniel, Attorney General), Idaho, Indiana, 

Iowa (Terry E. Branstad, Governor of the State of 

Iowa on behalf of the People of Iowa), Kansas, Kentucky (Jack Conway, Attorney General of Kentucky), 

Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, 

Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West 

Virginia, and Wyoming, and the Texas Commission 

on Environmental Quality, the Texas Public Utility 

Commission, and the Railroad Commission of Texas. 

Petitioner in No. 14-47 is the Utility Air Regulatory 

Group. Petitioner in No. 14-49 is the National Mining Association. Each petitioner in these consolidated cases was also a petitioner in the court of appeals. 

Respondents herein, which were the respondents 

below, are the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and Gina McCarthy, Administrator, 

United States Environmental Protection. 

Respondents who were petitioners in the court of 

appeals are: White Stallion Energy Center, LLC; 

American Public Power Association; ARIPPA; Chase 

Power Development, LLC; Edgecombe Genco, LLC; 

FirstEnergy Generation Corporation; Gulf Coast 

Lignite Coalition; Institute for Liberty; Julander Energy Company; Kansas City Board of Public Utilities; 

Midwest Ozone Group; National Black Chamber of 

Commerce; Oak Grove Management Company, LLC; 

Peabody Energy Corporation; Puerto Rico Electric 

Power Authority; Spruance Genco, LLC; State of 

Florida; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Commonwealth of Virginia; Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.; United Mine Workers of 
110 

111 

America; West Virginia Chamber of Commerce, Inc.; 

Georgia Association of Manufacturers, Inc.; Indiana 

Chamber of Commerce, Inc.; Indiana Coal Council, 

Inc.; Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, Inc.; Kentucky Coal Association, Inc.; North Carolina Chamber; Ohio Chamber of Commerce; Pennsylvania Coal 

Association; South Carolina Chamber of Commerce; 

The Virginia Chamber of Commerce; The Virginia 

Coal Association, Incorporated; West Virginia Coal 

Association, Inc.; Wisconsin Industrial Energy 

Group, Inc.; Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, 

Inc.; Chesapeake Climate Action Network; Conservation Law Foundation; Environmental Integrity Project; and Sierra Club. 

Respondent-intervenors in the court of appeals 

(with respect to certain petitions for review) were 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts; State of California; State of Connecticut; State of Delaware; State of 

Illinois; State of Iowa; State of Maine; State of Maryland; State of Minnesota; State of New Hampshire; 

State of New Mexico; State of New York; State of 

North Carolina; State of Oregon; State of Rhode Island; State of Vermont; City of Baltimore; City of 

Chicago; City of New York; District of Columbia; 

County of Erie, New York; Calpine Corporation; 

Chase Power Development, LLC; Exelon Corporation; National Grid Generation LLC; Public Service 

Enterprise Group, Inc.; Gulf Coast Lignite Coalition; 

Institute for Liberty; Lignite Energy Council; National Black Chamber of Commerce; National Mining 

Association; Oak Grove Management Company, 

LLC; Peabody Energy Corporation; Sunflower Electric Power Corporation; Tri-State Generation and 

Transmission Association, Inc.; Utility Air Regulatory Group; White Stallion Energy Center, LLC; Amer-
111 

IV 

ican Academy of Pediatrics; American Lung Association; American Nurses Association; American Public 

Health Association; Chesapeake Bay Foundation; 

Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future; Clean Air Council; Conservation Law Foundation; Environment 

America; Environmental Defense Fund; lzaak Walton League of America; National Association for the 

Advancement of Colored People; Natural Resources 

Council of Maine; Natural Resources Defense Council; Ohio Environmental Council; Physicians for Social Responsibility; Sierra Club; and Waterkeeper 

Alliance. 

A respondent in the court of appeals (with respect 

to certain petitions for review) was Lisa Perez Jackson, Administrator, United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. Ms. Jackson ceased to hold the 

office of Administrator, United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, on February 15, 2013; that office 

is currently held by Gina McCarthy, Administrator, 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 
112 

v 

RULE 29.6 DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS 

Petitioner 

Utility Air Regulatory Group ("UARG") is an 

ad hoc, unincorporated association of individual electric generating companies and industry trade associations that participates on behalf of its members collectively in administrative proceedings under the 

Clean Air Act, and in litigation arising from those 

proceedings, that affect electric generators. UARG 

has no outstanding shares or debt securities in the 

hands of the public and has no parent company. No 

publicly held company has a 10% or greater ownership interest in UARG. 

Respondents in Support of Petitioner 

American Public Power Association ("APP A") 

is a nonprofit trade association whose members are 

units of state and local governments that own and 

operate electric generating, distribution and transmission assets. APPA addresses issues of interest to 

its members, including those issues related to the 

development and implementation of requirements 

under federal and state Clean Air Act programs. 

APP A does not have any outstanding securities in 

the hands of the public, nor does APP A have a publicly owned parent, subsidiary, or affiliate. 

ARIPPA is a non-profit trade association that 

represents a membership primarily comprised of 

electric generating plants using environmentallyfriendly circulating fluidized bed boiler technology to 

convert coal refuse and/or other alternative fuels 

such as biomass into alternative energy and/or 

steam, with the resultant alkaline ash used to reclaim mine lands. ARIPPA was organized in 1988 
113 

Vl 

for the purpose of promoting the professional, legislative and technical interests of its member facilities. 

ARIPPA has no outstanding shares or debt securities 

in the hands of the public and does not have any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate that has issued shares or 

debt securities to the public. 

Gulf Coast Lignite Coalition ("GCLC") is a 

non-profit corporation organized under the laws of 

the State of Texas and comprised of individual electric generating and mining companies. GCLC participates on behalf of its members collectively in proceedings brought under United States environmental 

regulations, and in litigation arising from those proceedings, which affect electric generators and mines. 

GCLC has no outstanding shares or debt securities 

in the hands of the public and has no parent company. No publicly held company has a 10% or greater 

ownership interest in GCLC. 

Kansas City Board Of Public UtilitiesUnified Government Wyandotte County/Kansas 

City, Kansas is not required to provide a Rule 29.6 

Disclosure Statement because it is a governmental 

entity organized under the laws of the State of Kansas. Accordingly, no Disclosure Statement is being 

provided. 

White Stallion Energy Center, LLC ("WSEC") 

is a limited liability company organized under the 

laws of the State of Texas engaged in the business of 

energy development and production. Maris Investment Company, LLC, and Sky Global Partners, LLC 

each hold a 10% or greater ownership interest in it. 
114 

Vll 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

QUESTION PRESENTED ........................................... i 

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING ............................ ii 

RULE 29.6 DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS ............... v 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................... vii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... ix 

OPINIONS BELOW .................................................... 1 

JURISDICTION .......................................................... 1 

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY 

PROVISIONS INVOLVED .............................. 1 

INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 2 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................... 3 

I. Regulation of EG U HAP Emissions 

Under the CAA ............................................... 3 

A. CAA HAP Regulation Prior to 

1990 ........................................................ 4 

B. Statutory Changes to the CAA in 

1990 ........................................................ 6 

II. Characteristics of EGU HAP 

Emissions ..................................................... 11 

III. Agency Action Under §7412(n) Prior 

to the 1\fATS Rulemaking ............................ l5 

IV. Regulation ofEGU HAP Emissions 

Under the 1\fATS Rule ................................. 18 

V. The D.C. Circuit Decision ............................ 19 

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................... 22 
115 

Vlll 

ARGUMENT .............................................................. 24 

I. The "Appropriate and Necessary" 

Decisional Standard in §7412(n)(l)(A) 

Embraces a Broad Range of Factors 

That Includes Costs ..................................... 25 

A. Congress Has Consistently 

Required Consideration of Costs 

in Making Decisions on CAA 

Emission Standards ............................. 27 

B. Section 7 412(n)(l)(A) Is a 

Residual Risk Provision ....................... 30 

C. The Panel Majority's Reliance on 

Whitman Was Misplaced ..................... 35 

II. EPA Was Also Required to Consider 

Costs as a Matter of Reasoned 

Decisionmaking ............................................ 36 

III. Under §7412(n), Costs Must Be 

Considered in the Context of 

Emission Standard-Setting Decisions 

for the Specific EGU HAP Emissions 

That Pose Health Hazards .......................... 40 

CONCLUSION .......................................................... 44 
116 

IX 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Page 

Cases: 

Am. Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct. 

2527 (20 11) ........................................................... 18 

Am. Textile Mfrs. Inst., Inc. v. Donovan, 452 

U.S. 490 (1981) ............................................... 28, 38 

Ass'n of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 

667 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ......................................... 8, 31 

Coal. for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 

F.3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2012), aff'd in part & 

rev'd in part, Utility Air Regulatory Grp. v. 

EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014) ................................ 27 

Entergy Corp. v. Riverl?-eeper, Inc., 556 U.S. 208 

(2009) ...................................... 28, 29, 32, 33, 37, 39 

EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 

S. Ct. 1584 (2014) ........................................... 27, 31 

Indus. Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Am. Petroleum 

Inst., 448 U.S. 607 (1980) ........................ 26, 28, 32 

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual 

Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) ........................ 36 

Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Air Agencies v. EPA, 489 

F.3d 1221 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ................................... 39 

Nat'l Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 

2000) ....................................................................... 8 

Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077 

(D.C. Cir. 2008) .................................................... 30 
117 

X 

New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 

2008) ........................................................... 6, 17, 18 

Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457 

(2001) .............................................................. 27, 35 

Statutes: 

28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ...................................................... 1 

29 U.S.C. § 652(8) ...................................................... 38 

29 U.S.C. § 655(b)(5) ................................................. 38 

42 U.S.C. § 1857c-7(a)(1) (1970) ................................. 4 

42 U.S.C. § 1857c-7(b)(1)(B) (1970) ............................ 4 

Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401, et seq. (2012) 

42 U.S.C. § 7409(b) .............................................. 27 

42 U.S.C. § 7 409(b)(1) .................................... 27, 35 

42 u.s.c. § 7409(d) .............................................. 27 

42 U.S.C. § 7 410(a)(2)(D) ..................................... 27 

42 U.S.C. § 7411 ............................................. 17, 18 

42 U.S.C. § 7411(a)(1) ............................................ 7 

42 U.S.C. § 7 411(b) .............................................. 27 

42 U.S.C. § 7 411(b)(l)(A) ..................................... 27 

42 U.S.C. § 7411(d) .................................. 18, 27, 42 

42 U.S.C. § 741l(d)(2) .......................................... 29 

42 U.S.C. § 7412 ........................................... passim 

42 U.S. C.§ 7412(a)(1) ............................................ 6 

42 U.S.C. § 7412(a)(7) ............................................ 9 
118 

Xl 

42 U.S.C. § 7412(b) ................................................ 6 

42 U.S.C. § 7 412(c) ............................. 16, 17, 18, 24 

42 U.S.C. § 7 412(c)(l) ............................................. 6 

42 U.S.C. § 7 412(c)(9) ....................................... 8, 17 

42 U.S.C. § 7 412(c)(9)(B)(ii) ................................. 18 

42 U.S.C. § 7412(d) ...................................... passim 

42 u.s.c. § 7412(d)(2) .......................... 7, 27, 33, 34 

42 U.S.C. § 7 412(d)(3) ................................ 8, 33, 34 

42 U.S.C. § 7 412(d)(5) .......................................... 32 

42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(6) ...................................... 8, 31 

42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(8)(A)(i) .................................. 34 

42 u.s.c. § 7412(f) ........................... 7, 8, 10, 30, 41 

42 U.S.C. § 7412(±)(1) ........................................... 33 

42 U.S.C. § 7 412(f)(2) ..................................... 30, 41 

42 U.S.C. § 7412(f)(2)(A) .............................. 8, 9, 33 

42 U.S.C. § 7412(m) ....................................... 30, 41 

42 U.S.C. § 7412(n) ...................................... passim 

42 U.S.C. § 7412(n)(l)(A) ............................. passim 

42 U.S.C. § 7412(n)(l)(B) ..................................... 33 

42 U.S.C. § 7412(s) ............................................... 33 

42 U.S.C. § 7475 ................................................... 27 

42 U.S.C. § 7479(3) ................................................ 7 

42 U.S.C. § 7491 ................................................... 27 
119 

xii 

42 U.S.C. § 7491(b)(2)(A) ....................................... 7 

42 U.S. C.§ 7491(b)(2)(B) ....................................... 7 

42 u.s.c. § 7502 ··················································· 27 

42 U.S.C. § 7521(a) .............................................. 27 

42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1) .......................................... 27 

42 u.s.c. § 7651£ .................................................. 27 

Legislative History: 

136 CONG. REC. 3185 (Mar. 1, 1990) ........................... 9 

136 CONG. REC. 3392 (Mar. 5, 1990) ........................... 9 

136 CONG. REC. 3493 (Mar. 6, 1990) ........................... 9 

House Debate on the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Conference Report (Oct. 26, 

1990) (statement of Rep. Michael Oxley), reprinted in 1 A LEGISLATNE HISTORY OF THE 

CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1990, at 

1417 (1993) ........................................................... 11 

Pub. L. No. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1676 (1970) .................... 4 

Pub. L. No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399 (1990) ................ 9 

S. 1630 as passed by the House, § 301 (1990), 

reprinted in 2 A LEGISLATNE HISTORY OF THE 

CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1990, at 

1809 (1993) ............................................................. 9 

S. 1630, § 301 (1990), reprinted in 3 A LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1990, at 4119 (1993) .............................. 9 

S. Rep. No. 101-228 (1989), reprinted in 1990 

U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385 .................................................. 6 
120 

Xlll 

Regulations: 

40 C.F.R. Part 61 ......................................................... 6 

Federal Register: 

40 Fed. Reg. 48,292 (Oct. 14, 1975) ............................ 5 

48 Fed. Reg. 15,076 (Apr. 6, 1983) .............................. 5 

52 Fed. Reg. 8724 (1\far. 19, 1987) .............................. 5 

54 Fed. Reg. 38,044 (Sept. 14, 1989) .......................... .4 

54 Fed. Reg. 51,654 (Dec. 15, 1989) ........................ 5, 6 

65 Fed. Reg. 79,825 (Dec. 20, 2000) ...................... 5, 16 

69 Fed. Reg. 4652 (Jan. 30, 2004) ............................. 12 

70 Fed. Reg. 15,994 (Mar. 29, 2005) ... 5, 10, 13, 16, 17 

70 Fed. Reg. 28,606 (May 18, 2005) .......................... 17 

71 Fed. Reg. 76,603 (Dec. 21, 2006) .......................... 34 

74 Fed. Reg. 30,366 (June 25, 2009) ......................... 31 

76 Fed. Reg. 24,976 (May 3, 20 11) ............... 12, 14, 15, 

................................................................. 18, 24, 42 

77 Fed. Reg. 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012) ..................... passim 

Miscellaneous: 

BREYER, STEPHEN, BREAKING THE VICIOUS CIRCLE: TOWARD EFFECTIVE RISK REGULATION 

(1993) .................................................................... 29 

Breyer, Stephen, Forward: Beyond the Vicious 

Circle, 3 NYU ENvrL. L.J. 251 (1994-95) ............ 29 
121 

XlV 

Calandrillo, Steve P ., Responsible Regulation: A 

Sensible Cost-Benefit, Risk Versus Risk Approach to Federal Health and Safety Regulations, 81 B.U. L. REV. 957 (2001) ......................... 28 

Industrial Economics Inc., Direct Cost Estimates for the Clean Air Act Second Section 

812 Prospective Analysis (Feb. 2011), available at 

http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/feb1llcostfull 

report.pdf .............................................................. 21 

Institute for Energy Research, Impact of EPA's 

Regulatory Assault on Power Plants: New 

Regulations to Take More than 72 GW of 

Electricity Generation Offline and the Plant 

Closing Announcements Keep Coming ... 

(Oct. 20 14), available at 

http:/ /instituteforenergvresearch.org/topics/p 

olicy/power-plant-closures ................................... 21 

Meyers, Sheldon, Office of Radiation Programs, 

Office of Air and Radiation, EPA, Applications of De Minimis in DE MINIMIS RISK 

(Chris Whipple ed., 1987) .............................. 28, 29 

National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program Report to Congress 2011: An 

Integrated Assessment (Dec. 2011), available 

at 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/micro 

sites/ostp/2011 napap 508.pdf.. .......................... 10 
122 

XV 

U.S. Energy Information Administration, Today 

in Energy, AE02014 Projects More CoalFired Power Plant Retirements by 2016 

Than Have Been Scheduled (Feb. 14, 2014), 

available at 

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm? 

id==15031 ............................................................... 21 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Clean 

Air Market Programs, Acid Rain Program 

Benefits Exceed Expectations (undated), 

available at 

http://www.epa.gov/capandtrade/documents/ 

benefits.pdf ........................................................... 10 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA453/R-99-001, Residual Risk Report to Congress (Mar. 1999), available at 

http://www .epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/reports/risk 

rep.pdf ......................................................... 4, 29, 30 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA's 

Responses to Public Comments on EPA's National Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Air Pollutants from Coal-and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, Vol. 1 

(Dec. 2011), Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0234-20126 ........................................................... 24 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA453/R-98-004a, Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Electric Utility Steam 

Generating Units-Final Report to Congress, 

Vol. 1 (Feb. 1998), Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR2009-0234-3052 ......................................... 5, 12, 13, 

.................................................................. 14, 15, 16 
123 

XVl 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA452/R-11-013, Supplement to the Non-Hg 

Case Study Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment in Support of the Appropriate and Necessary Finding for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Generating Units (Nov. 2011), Docket 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-19912 ................... 14 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The 

Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970 

to 1990 (Oct. 1997), available at 

http://www .epa.gov/cleanairactbenefits/retro. 

html ........................................................................ 5 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA410-R-99-001, The Benefits and Costs of the 

Clean Air Act 1990 to 2010, EPA Report to 

Congress (Nov. 1999), available at 

http://www.epa.gov/cleanairactbenefits/prosp 

ective l.html? ga=l.261211470.2101051446.14 

21202605 ........................................................ 21, 22 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The 

Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 

1990 to 2020, Final Report-Rev. A (Apr. 

20 11), available at 

http://www .epa.gov/air/sect812/feb 11/costfull 

report.pdf .............................................................. 21 
124 

OPINIONS BELOW 

The majority opinion of the D.C. Circuit is reported at 748 F.3d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (per curiam), 

and reproduced in the Utility Air Regulatory Group 

("UARG") petitioner's appendix ("Pet. App.") at Pet. 

App. 3a-72a. The dissent of Judge Brett Kavanaugh 

is reproduced at Pet. App. 73a-104a. 

JURISDICTION 

The D.C. Circuit entered judgment denying (and, 

in the case of No. 12-1174, dismissing) the petitions 

for review on April 15, 2014. Pet. App. 1a-2a. This 

Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1254(1). 

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED 

Section 112(n)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act ("CAA" 

or "Act"), 42 U.S.C. §7 412(n)(l)(A), provides: 

(n) Other provisions 

(I) Electric utility steam generating units 

(A) The Administrator shall perform a 

study of the hazards to public health reasonably anticipated to occur as a result of emissions by electric utility steam generating units 

of pollutants listed under subsection (b) of this 

section after imposition of the requirements of 

this chapter. The Administrator shall report 

the results of this study to the Congress within 3 years after November 15, 1990. The Administrator shall develop and describe in the 

Administrator's report to Congress alternative 

control strategies for emissions which may 

warrant regulation under this section. The 

Administrator shall regulate electric utility 
125 

2 

steam generating units under this section, if 

the Administrator finds such regulation is appropriate and necessary after considering the 

results of the study required by this subparagraph. 

This provision and additional excerpts from 42 

U.S.C. §7412 are reproduced at Pet. App. 477a-505a. 

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule at issue, 77 Fed. Reg. 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012) ("MATS 

Rule"), is reproduced in excerpted form at Pet. App. 

105a-476a and in full in the appendix filed with the 

National Mining Association's ("NMA") petition for a 

writ of certiorari at NMA App. 196a-1160a. 

INTRODUCTION 

CAA §112(n), 42 U.S.C. §7412(n), provides that 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA" or 

"Agency") Administrator shall regulate electric utility steam generating unit ("EGU") hazardous air pollutant ("HAP") emissions "under this section," if she 

"finds [that] such regulation is appropriate and necessary" to address "hazards to public health" that 

remain "after imposition of the requirements of this 

[Act]." §7 412(n)(1)(A) (emphases added). 1 Because 

1 The §7412(n)(l)(A) study refers to ''hazards to public health 

reasonably anticipated to occur" as a result of exposure to remaining EGU emissions. Generally, the word "hazard" refers to 

a potential source of harm and the word "risk" is the lihelihood 

of harm resulting from exposure to a hazard. Section 7 412(n) 

provides that the "hazard" at issue is a threat to "public health" 

and the "risk" of that hazard occurring cannot be remote or 

speculative, but must be "reasonably anticipated to occur." In 

managing carcinogenic hazards of the kind referenced in the 

§7412(n) study, EPA has found risk estimates as high as one 

predicted mortality in ten thousand to be presumptively "safe" 
126 

3 

residual risk provisions like §7412(n)(1)(A) address 

diminishing increments of air pollution, they require 

balancing substantial costs to society against shrinking benefits. 

In the Iv1A TS Rule, the quantified costs of HAP 

regulation are more than one-thousand times greater 

than the quantified benefits: $9.6 billion versus $4 

to $6 million. EPA says that Congress' direction to 

regulate specific HAP emissions posing remaining 

"hazards to public health" only if "appropriate and 

necessary" authorizes the Agency to regulate, at 

enormous cost, HAP emissions that present only environmental risks or de minimis health hazards. 

That interpretation is as curious as it is wrong. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

I. Regulation of EGU HAP Emissions Under 

the CAA. 

Numerous times after passage of the CAA in 

1970, EPA evaluated the electric utility industry for 

potential §7412 regulation. Every time EPA came to 

a consistent scientific conclusion: the public health 

risks presented by EGU HAP emissions are vanishingly small and are adequately regulated through 

other CAA programs. This history informed Congress' treatment of EGUs in the 1990 CAA Amendments. 

and, at the other end of the spectrum, risks of one-in-one million or less to be too remote to require protection. Infra pp. 4-5. 

Hereafter, references to "public health risk" and "health hazards" are used interchangeably to refer to "hazards to public 

health reasonably anticipated to occur." 
127 

4 

A. CAA HAP Regulation Prior to 1990. 

Prior to the 1990 Amendments, §7412 required 

EPA to develop a list of individual HAPs for regulation, and then to develop emission standards for each 

listed HAP as needed to provide an "ample margin of 

safety" to protect public health. Pub. L. No. 91-604, 

84 Stat. 1676, 1685 (1970); 42 U.S.C. §1857c-7(a)(l), 

(b)(1)(B) (1970). In establishing these emission 

standards, EPA interpreted the "ample margin of 

safety" language to authorize a risk management decision considering "all health information ... as well as 

other relevant factors including costs and economic 

impacts, technological feasibility, and other factors 

relevant to each particular decision." 54 Fed. Reg. 

38,044, 38,045 (Sept. 14, 1989). 

Under EPA's pre-1990 approach to developing 

HAP emission standards, EPA first established "a 

'safe' or 'acceptable' risk level.. .considering all health 

information .... [with] 'an MIR (maximum individual 

risk) of approximately 1 in 10 thousand ... [as] the 

upper-end of the range of acceptability."' EPA, EPA453/R-99-00 1, Residual Risk Report to Congress at 

ES-11 (Mar. 1999), available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/reports/risk_rep.pdf 

("EPA Residual Risk Report"). In providing an ample margin of safety considering "other relevant factors including costs, economic impacts, [and] technological feasibility," EPA considered alternative 

standards addressing risks between one-in-ten thousand and one-in-one million to determine a protective level. Id. 

Over this same period, the CAA required EGUs to 

install controls for a variety of conventional, nonhazardous pollutants, including flue gas desulfuriza-
128 

5 

tion systems (known as "scrubbers") for sulfur dioxide ("S02") emissions and fabric filters or electrostatic precipitators for particulate matter ("PM") emissions. HAPs in EGU combustion gas streams were 

also reduced by these controls. 2 Reflecting the fact 

that emissions of HAPs constituted a miniscule percentage of all EGU emissions, every EPA evaluation 

of EGU HAP emissions prior to the 1990 CAA concluded that those emissions did not pose a significant 

public health risk. 40 Fed. Reg. 48,292, 48,297, 

48,298 (Oct. 14, 1975) (mercury); 52 Fed. Reg. 8724, 

8725 (Mar. 19, 1987) (mercury); see also 48 Fed. Reg. 

15,076, 15,085 (Apr. 6, 1983) (radionuclides); 54 Fed. 

Reg. 51,654, 51,671-72 (Dec. 15, 1989) (radionuclides). 

In the case of radionuclides, for example, EPA 

found that EGU emission levels were "safe" because 

no facility had a risk above one-in-ten thousand (the 

highest risk from an EGU was one-in-seventy-fivethousand). EPA estimated that 130,000 people in 

the U.S. were potentially exposed to health risks 

greater than one-in-one million, and that the cost of 

2 EPA, The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to 

1990, at 39 (Oct. 1997), available at 

http://www.epa.gov/cleanairactbenefits/retro.html ("Control of 

[hazardous air] pollutants resulted ... from incidental control due 

to criteria pollutant programs .... "); see also 65 Fed. Reg. 79,825 

(Dec. 20, 2000) ("Notice of Finding"), Pet. App. 621a-622a; 70 

Fed. Reg. 15,994 (Mar. 29, 2005) ("2005 Correction Rule") (correcting certain conclusions drawn in 2000), Pet. App. 587a; 

EPA, EPA-453/R-98-004a, Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant 

Emissions from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units-Final 

Report to Congress, Vol. 1 (Feb. 1998), Docket No. EPA-HQOAR-2009-0234-3052 ("Utility Study") (estimating utility HAP 

emissions in 1990), Joint Appendix ("JA'') 69. 
129 

6 

reducing those risks would require $13 billion in capital costs plus $4.4 billion in annual costs. 54 Fed. 

Reg. at 51,671-72. Weighing the public health risks 

and costs, EPA concluded that existing radionuclide 

emissions were at levels that protected public health 

"with an ample margin of safety." Id. at 51,672. 

As for non-EGU HAP sources, the difficulty of 

risk characterizations and controversy surrounding a 

program that could impose substantial costs on key 

industries resulted in limited HAP emissions regulation under §7412 prior to 1990. As of 1990, EPA had 

listed only eight HAPs for regulation under §7412, 

and had regulated emissions of only seven of those 

for a limited number of source categories. 40 C.F.R. 

pt. 61; see New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. 

Cir. 2008). 

B. Statutory Changes to the CAA in 

1990. 

Non-EGU HAP emissions-Dissatisfied with the 

slow progress of regulation under §7412, Congress in 

1990 amended that provision to introduce a new, 

control technology-driven approach to ensure prompt 

regulation of HAPs from the many stationary source 

categories that had not yet been regulated. See S. 

Rep. No. 101-228, at 131-33 (1989), reprinted in 1990 

U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 3516-18. Congress listed 189 

HAPs for regulation, §7412(b), and defined in objective terms the source categories whose HAP emissions were to be regulated. A source category would 

be listed for regulation if a source within that category is located at a facility that emits more than either 

10 tons of any one HAP or 25 tons of all HAPs. 

§7412(a)(1), (c)(l). 
130 

7 

For listed categories, Congress, as it had under 

other CAA programs, called upon EPA initially to 

promulgate "technology-based" emission standards3 

under §7412(d), and later to consider more stringent 

standards under §7412(f) if unacceptable risks remained after implementation of the technology-based 

standards. Cf. Visibility Protection Program, 42 

U.S.C. §749l(b)(2)(A) ("best available retrofit technology" ("BART")) & (B) ("long term ... strategy" to reduce risk of visibility impairment). 

Technology-based emission standards are found 

throughout the CAA and have two common elements: 

(1) Congress identifies a universe of technologies 

(i.e., low emitting measures, processes, systems or 

techniques) upon which standards will be based 

(thus creating a "floor" on required reductions), and 

(2) Congress requires that costs, energy, and other 

factors be considered in setting standards based on 

the candidate technologies. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 

§§7 411(a)(l) ("best system of emission reduction"), 

7 4 79(3) ("best available control technology" 

("BACT")), 7491(b)(2)(A) (BART). For source categories listed under §7412, EPA must establish what 

EPA calls MACT ("maximum achievable control 

technology") emission standards, which reflect the 

"maximum degree of reduction in emissions" that is 

"achievable" for new and existing sources within the 

category, "taking into consideration the cost of 

achieving such emission reduction" and other factors. 

§7412(d)(2). 

3 Emission reduction "technology" includes virtually any measure or technique that limits the emissions of a pollutant, from 

process changes to emission control equipment. See, e.g., 

§7412(d)(2). 
131 

8 

For new sources, the universe of technologies considered in this MACT standard-setting inquiry is determined in the first instance in reference to the degree of emission limitation "achieved in practice by 

the best controlled similar source." §7412(d)(3). For 

existing sources, it is determined in reference to the 

"best performing ... existing sources." ld. EPA must 

establish MACT for every individual HAP emitted by 

major sources in a listed category. Nat'l Lime Ass'n 

v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 633-34 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Finally, EPA must review MACT standards at least every 

eight years to account for "developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies" for specific 

HAPs, considering costs. §7412(d)(6); Ass'n of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 673-74 

(D.C. Cir. 2013) (per curiam). 

Following implementation of §7412(d) standards, 

the Administrator must consider regulation of residual public health risks posed by individual HAP 

emissions if needed to provide an "ample margin of 

safety to protect public health in accordance with 

this section (as in effect before November 15, 1990)," 

§7412(f)(2)(A) (emphasis added)-a reference to 

EPA's pre-1990 interpretation of "ample margin of 

safety" to encompass consideration of cost and other 

factors. Moreover, reflecting EPA's pre-1990 approach to "ample margin of safety" regulation, Congress recognized one-in-one million as a negligible 

level of public health risk. See §7412(f)(2)(A), (c)(9). 

Finally, under §7412(£), the Administrator must also 

consider regulation of residual environmental risks 

associated with such non-EGU emissions if she determines that a more stringent standard is "necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse 
132 

9 

environmental effect."4 §7412(f)(2)(A) (emphasis 

added). In this manner, Congress made clear that 

costs and other factors are relevant to striking an 

appropriate regulatory balance when addressing either health or environmental residual risks that 

might remain after control technology regulation. 

EGU HAP emissions-In the legislative process that 

led to the 1990 Amendments, individual legislators 

expressed concern that duplicative regulation of 

EGUs "would increase power rates, while potentially 

providing little or no public health benefit." 136 

Cong. Rec. 3493 (Mar. 6, 1990) (statement of Sen. 

Steve Symms); see also 136 Cong. Rec. 3185 (Mar. 1, 

1990) (Summary of Bi-Partisan Senate Clean Air Act 

Agreement Nonattainment of Health Standards for 

Ozone); 136 Cong. Rec. 3392 (Mar. 5, 1990) (same); S. 

1630, §301 (1990), reprinted in 3 A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, at 

4119, 4407, 4433 (1993) ("1990 Legis. History"). 

While the Senate went to conference with a bill that 

would have treated EGUs the same as other source 

categories, see S. 1630, §301 (1990), reprinted in 3 

1990 Legis. History, at 4418-28, the House bill included an EGU-specific provision virtually identical 

to the current §7412(n)(1)(A). S. 1630 as passed by 

the House, §301 (1990), reprinted in 2 1990 Legis. 

History at 1809, 2122, 2148-49. Reflecting the widespread concern with duplicative regulation of EGUs, 

the Conference Committee adopted the House provision requiring separate regulatory scrutiny of EGU 

HAP emissions. Pub. L. No. 101-549, 104 Stat. Ann. 

2399, 2558-59 (1990). 

4 "Adverse environmental effect" is defined in §7412(a)(7) as 

"any significant and widespread adverse effect." 
133 

10 

In this EGU-specific provision, which became 

§7412(n) of the Act, Congress recognized that EGU 

HAP emissions are not like HAP emissions from other source categories. 5 In addition to earlier CAA 

programs that had substantially reduced EGU HAP 

emissions, Congress in 1990 imposed massive additional reduction requirements on EG U emissions of 

conventional, non-hazardous pollutants, such as SOz. 

nitrogen oxides and PM. These programs included a 

new regional haze visibility program, new acid rain 

title, and stringent, new nonattainment requirements-all focused on further EGU reductions in 

conventional pollutants. These requirements reduced conventional pollutant emissions by many millions of tons and lowered EGU HAP emissions even 

further beyond the already low, pre-1990 levels. 6 

Congress in § 7 412(n)( 1 )(A) therefore focused EPA's 

authority to regulate EGU HAPs on only those HAP 

emissions that posed an unacceptable residual 

health risk after implementation of other CAA programs. 

5 2005 Correction Rule, Pet. App. 550a; MATS Rule, Pet. App. 

242a (acknowledging "disparate treatment" of EGUs under 

§7412); see also Pet. App. 84a ("the majority opinion ... does not 

sufficiently account for the fact that treating electric utilities 

differently from standard sources was the intent of Section 

[7 4] 12(n)(l)(A), as revealed by the statutory text .... ") (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 

6 See EPA, Clean Air Market Programs, Acid Rain Program 

Benefits Exceed Expectations (undated), available at 

http://www.epa.gov/capandtrade/documents/benefits.pdf; National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, National Acid 

Precipitation Assessment Program Report to Congress 2011: 

An Integrated Assessment (Dec. 2011), available at 

www .whitehouse. gov/ sites/ default/files/microsites/ostp/20 ll_na 

pap_508.pdf. 
134 

11 

Congress in §7412(n) instructed EPA to conduct 

"a study of the hazards to public health reasonably 

anticipated to occur as a result of [the EGU HAP] 

emissions" that remain after "imposition of the requirements of this [Act]." §7412(n)(1)(A). As part of 

that evaluation, Congress instructed EPA to "develop 

and describe ... alternative control strategies for [any 

HAP] emissions which may warrant regulation under this section." !d. Then, for any HAP emission 

that might "warrant" regulation, Congress provided 

that EPA is to regulate that emission "under this 

section [§7 412]" if it determines that "such regulation is appropriate and necessary after considering 

the results of the study." Id. 

Congress' §7412(n)(1)(A) program for residual 

public health risks from EGU HAP emissions shares 

a number of features in common with other programs addressing residual risk regulation of nonEGU source categories. In particular, residual risk 

regulation under both §7 412(£) and §7 412(n)(l)(A) 

requires a pollutant-specific risk management decision that considers a broad array of factors and regulatory consequences. As Representative Oxley (a 

sponsor of the 1990 House Bill) explained, §7412(n) 

was written to "protect[] ... the public health while 

avoiding the imposition of excessive and unnecessary 

costs on residential, industrial, and commercial consumers of electricity." See House Debate on the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Conference Report (Oct. 26, 1990) (statement of Rep. Michael Oxley), reprinted in 1 1990 Legis. History, at 1417. 

II. Characteristics of EGU HAP Emissions. 

EGU HAP emissions result from elements naturally present in trace amounts in the fuels combust-
135 

12 

ed to generate electricity. Emissions of these elements are largely removed from EGU gas streams by 

control technologies installed to address conventional 

pollutants. See supra pp. 4-5 & note 2. The four 

general categories of EGU HAPs on which EPA focused in the MATS rulemaking were mercury, nonmercury metals (e.g., arsenic, chromium, and nickel), 

acid gases (e.g., hydrogen chloride ("HCl") and hydrogen fluoride ("HF")), and organics (including dioxins). 

Mercury: Mercury enters the environment both 

through natural processes, such as volcanic eruptions and forest fires, and through human activities, 

such as gold mining and fossil fuel combustion. In 

2004, EPA estimated that total global emissions of 

mercury were about 5,000 tons per year: 1,000 tons 

from natural sources, 2,000 tons from manmade 

sources, and 2,000 tons from reemission of mercury 

previously deposited on soil. 69 Fed. Reg. 4652 (Jan. 

30, 2004) ("2004 Proposed Correction Rule"), JA 143. 

EPA's 1998 Utility Study estimated that U.S. coalfired EGUs emitted about 51.5 tons of mercury annually, or about 1% of the 5,000 tons of annual 

worldwide mercury emissions. Utility Study, JA 

132-134. By 2010, those mercury emissions were reduced to 29 tons per year as a result of other CAA 

control programs. 76 Fed. Reg. 24,976 (May 3, 2011) 

("Proposed MATS Rule"), NMA App. 1298a. 

Humans are primarily exposed to mercury 

through consumption of fish containing methylmercury. Id. at 1195a. EGUs do not produce or emit 

methylmercury. Methylmercury is formed by microbes in waterbody sediment and eventually works 

its way up the food chain to fish. Only a small fraction of the mercury emitted by EGUs deposits in the 
136 

13 

United States and only a small fraction of that deposited mercury actually enters waterbodies. Only a 

very small fraction of that deposition is biologically 

transformed into methylmercury, and only a small 

fraction of that methylmercury ends up in the fish 

that people eat. See Electric Power Research Institute ("EPRI") Comments on 2004 Proposed Correction Rule at 2 (June 16, 2004), Docket No. EPA-HQOAR-2002-0056-2578. As a result, human exposure 

to methylmercury resulting from domestic EG U 

emissions is exceedingly small. 2005 Correction 

Rule, JA 146-153. 

Trace metals: When coal and oil are combusted 

in an EGU, non-mercury trace metals (e.g., chromium and arsenic) adhere to ash particles, which are 

captured by high efficiency PM control devices required under other CAA programs. In the 1998 Utility Study, EPA performed a conservative, "high-end" 

estimate of the inhalation risks posed by nonmercury metal emissions from all coal-fired EGUs. 

Those analyses of HAP metals showed that out of 

426 coal-fired utility boilers, Utility Study, JA 123, 

only two had cumulative carcinogenic risks of slightly greater than one-in-one million, with the highest 

facility risk at three-in-one million. Id. at 124-125. 

For non-carcinogenic trace metal emissions, EPA 

found that inhalation exposure levels were far below 

the reference concentration (''RfC"), which defines a 

safe level of exposure. Id. 

In December 2009, EPRI modeled every coal-fired 

facility in the United States and found that none 

posed a carcinogenic risk greater than one-in-one 

million. EPRI, Comments on Proposed MATS Rule 

at 3-22 to 3-24 (Aug. 4, 2011) ("EPRI MATS Comments"). In 2010-2011, EPA performed another 
137 

14 

highly conservative analysis, and concluded that five 

coal-fired utility boilers in the United States might 

slightly exceed a one-in-one million risk level, with 

the highest calculated risk at five-in-one million. 

MATS Rule, NMA App. 440a; EPA, EPA-452/R-11-

013, Supplement to the Non-Hg Case Study Chronic 

Inhalation Risk Assessment in Support of the Appropriate and Necessary Finding for Coal- and OilFired Electric Generating Units (Nov. 2011), Docket 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-19912 ("Supplement to 

Non-Hg Case Study"), JA 819-820.7 

Acid gases: During the combustion process, 

trace amounts of chlorine and fluorine combine with 

hydrogen to form the acid gases HCl and HF, which 

are non-carcinogens. Acid gas emissions are limited 

by SOz control devices such as scrubbers required 

under other programs. Proposed MATS Rule, NMA 

App. 1330a. EPA's modeling has consistently shown 

that the levels of human exposure to EGU acid gas 

emissions are an order of magnitude or more below 

conservative health-protective levels for those HAPs. 

Utility Study, JA 120-121, 131; Proposed MATS 

Rule, NMA App. 1485a ("Our case study analyses of 

the chronic impacts of EGUs did not indicate any 

significant potential for them to cause any exceedances of the chronic RfC for HCl.. .. "); Supplement to 

Non-Hg Case Study, JA 818-820. In terms of envi7 As explained in UARG's April2012 petition for administrative 

reconsideration, later re-sampling of these five plants showed 

that the emissions data on which EPA relied to claim a greater 

than one-in-one million risk level were the result of sampling 

contamination. UARG Petition for Reconsideration of MATS 

Rule at 6-7 (Apr. 16, 2012), Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0234-20179. EPA has never responded to that aspect of 

UARG's petition. 
138 

15 

ronmental effects, these acid gases represent less 

than one percent of the emissions contributing to 

acidification in United States waterbodies. EPRI 

:MATS Comments, JA 412-418. 

Organics: Coal and oil are mostly made up of 

"organic" compounds-i.e., molecules comprised 

mostly of carbon and hydrogen-which release significant amounts of energy when combusted. Organic 

HAPs are emitted as a result of incomplete fuel combustion. Testing for EGU emissions of organic HAPs 

in 2010 reported a large majority of "non-detect" values, meaning the amount emitted (if any) was so low 

that modern measurement methods could not detect 

it. Proposed :MATS Rule, Nl\1A App. 1441a. 

III. Agency Action Under §7 412(n) Prior to 

the MATS Rulemaking. 

Administrator Browner's "notice of regulatory finding"-In 1998, EPA published the Utility 

Study required by §7412(n)(1)(A). In that study, 

EPA evaluated mercury, non-mercury metals, acid 

gases, and organics. Consistent with EPA's pre-1990 

evaluations of EGU HAP emissions, EPA did not 

identify any "hazards to public health" that would 

remain after implementation of other CAA programs. 

Therefore, EPA did not make any "appropriate and 

necessary" finding under §7412(n)(1)(A). Utility 

Study, JA 62. Instead, EPA identified the need for 

further research in 11 areas "to gain a better understanding of the risks and impacts of utility mercury 

emissions." Id. at 110, 136-137. EPA also noted "potential concerns and uncertainties that may need 

further study" for dioxins, arsenic, and nickel emissions. Id. at 111. EPA found risks for acid gases and 
139 

16 

organic HAPs were far below levels that would pose 

any health concern. Id. at 124-125. 

Without completing most of the mercury research 

and any of the arsenic, nickel or chromium research 

identified by the Utility Study, and without conducting any notice-and-comment rulemaking, on December 20, 2000, then-departing Administrator Browner 

published a "[n]otice of regulatory finding." Notice of 

Finding, Pet. App. 610a-635a. In conclusory terms, 

she announced that regulation of mercury emissions 

from coal-fired EGUs and nickel emissions from oilfired EGUs was "appropriate and necessary" under 

§7412(n)(1)(A). Id. at 630a, 633a. In so doing, Administrator Browner indicated that this "regulatory 

finding" would be the subject of future rulemaking. 

Id. at 634a. Based on this regulatory finding, EPA 

listed EGUs as a source category under §7412(c), 

triggering the §7412(d) regulatory regime applicable 

to non-EGU source categories. Id. 

Initial §7412(n) rulemaking-In 2004, EPA began the promised notice-and-comment rulemaking to 

examine whether it was "appropriate and necessary" 

to regulate EGU HAP emissions. At the end of this 

rulemaking, EPA found that the last-minute 2000 

notice "lacked foundation" and concluded, based on 

"new information," that it was not appropriate to 

regulate mercury emissions from EGUs or nickel 

emissions from oil-fired EGUs. 2005 Correction 

Rule, Pet. App. 590a, 604a-608a. In addition, EPA 

found, coal-fired EGU emissions of other nonmercury HAPs posed too little risk to warrant regulation. Id. at 598a-604a. As a result, EPA removed 

EGUs from the §7412(c) list of source categories for 

regulation under §7412(d). Id. at 545a. 
140 

17 

In rejecting regulation of EGU emissions under 

§7412, the Agency concluded that "[n]othing pre~ 

eludes EPA from considering costs in assessing 

whether regulation of Utility Units under section 

[7 4] 12 is appropriate in light of all of the facts and 

circumstances presented." ld. at 576a. Therefore, 

"[e]ven if the remaining utility HAP emissions cause 

hazards to public health, it still may not be appropriate to regulate [EGUs] under section 112 because 

there may be other relevant factors [such as 

cost] ... that would lead the Agency to conclude it is 

not .. .'appropriate' to regulate [EGUs] under section 

[7 4] 12." ld. at 575a (emphasis added). In a compan~ 

ion rule known as the Clean Air Mercury Rule, EPA 

promulgated emission standards regulating mercury 

emissions from both new and existing EGUs under 

§7411. 70 Fed. Reg. 28,606 (May 18, 2005). 

New Jersey v. EPA-The D.C. Circuit heard 

challenges to the final §7412(n) rule on EGU HAP 

emissions and the final §7 411 rule regulating EGU 

mercury emissions. The court vacated EPA's decision to remove coal- and oil-fired EGU s from the 

§7412(c) list of regulated source categories, reinstated the earlier §7412(c) listing, and vacated the §7411 

standards. New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. 

Cir. 2008). In so doing, the court did not review the 

factual or statutory basis for the finding that any 

"regulation under [§7 412]" was not "appropriate and 

necessary." Instead, it found that even if the Browner §7412(n) finding in 2000 and §7412(c) listing were 

erroneous, EPA could only remove EGUs from the 

list of source categories regulated under §7412(d) ifit 

followed the delisting requirements of §7412(c)(9). 

ld. at 583. Section 7 412(c)(9) provides for "de-listing" 

of a listed source category only if no source in the 
141 

18 

category poses a lifetime cancer risk of greater than 

one-in-one million, or a noncancer health risk that 

"exceed[s] a level which is adequate to protect public 

health with an ample margin of safety." 

§7 412(c)(9)(B)(ii). De-listing also requires a finding 

that HAP emissions from a source do not create an 

"adverse environmental effect." I d. With EG Us reinstated to the §7 412(c) list, the court vacated the 

§7411 EGU mercury regulations on the ground that 

EGUs could not simultaneously be regulated under 

those two provisions. New Jersey, 517 F.3d at 583; 

see also §7411(d); Am. Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, 

131 S. Ct. 2527, 2537 n.7 (2011). 

IV. Regulation of EGU HAP Emissions Under 

the MATS Rule. 

In 2011 and 2012, EPA conducted its New Jersey 

remand rulemaking, which resulted in the :MATS 

Rule at issue here. In the :MATS Rule, yet another 

EPA (i.e., the third Administration to address the issue) concluded that the December 2000 Notice of 

Finding was sufficient to list EGUs under §7412(c). 

:MATS Rule, Pet. App. 179a. Looking to the §7412(d) 

regulatory regime that applies to non-EGUs, EPA 

then concluded that "such [§7412(d)] regulation" was 

"appropriate and necessary" for EGUs under 

§7 412(n), in order to regulate not just mercury (the 

pollutant addressed in Administrator Browner's regulatory finding), but every HAP emitted by every 

EG U, as long as EPA found that one HAP emitted by 

one EGU created a residual "public health" risk or an 

"environmental" risk. Id. at 365a; see also Proposed 

:MATS Rule, Pet. App. 523a. 

EPA then promulgated the §7412(d) emissions 

standards for EGUs, regulating all HAPs emitted by 
142 

19 

EGUs regardless of the magnitude-or even existence-of any public health risk, and regardless of the 

cost of regulation. Not surprisingly, the costs of 

EPA's final rule dwarfed the HAP emission reduction 

benefits that EPA was able to quantify. Compare 

MATS Rule, Pet. App. 115a (estimating annual compliance costs of $9.6 billion) with id. at 461a (quantifying HAP health benefits, all associated with mercury reduction, at $4 to $6 million). Regarding acid 

gases in particular, EPA never found any threat to 

public health but nevertheless imposed MATS compliance obligations that account for about one-half of 

the $9.6 billion in annual costs estimated by EPA 

(and for about $30 billion in additional capital costs). 

See UARG, Comments on Proposed MATS Rule at 

258 (Aug. 4, 2011) ("UARG Comments on Proposed 

MATS Rule"), Pet. App. 512a, JA 807-810. 

V. The D.C. Circuit Decision. 

A total of 23 States and one governor, as well as 

numerous industry parties, filed petitions for review 

of various aspects of the MATS Rule, including EPA's 

refusal to consider costs in determining whether it 

was "appropriate and necessary" to regulate EGU 

HAPs. On April 15, 2014, the D.C. Circuit (Chief 

Judge Merrick Garland, Judge Judith Rogers, and 

Judge Brett Kavanaugh) denied all petitions for review. Pet. App. lOa. 

With regard to whether EPA is required to consider cost in detet·mining if it is "appropriate" to regulate emissions of EGU HAPs, Judges Garland and 

Rogers held that EPA was not required to consider 

cost. ld. at 26a ("[S]uch a reading of 'appropriate' is 

unwarranted here .... "). They concluded that Congress' use of the word "costs" in other provisions of 
143 

20 

§7412 meant that Congress could not, "by using only 

the broad term 'appropriate'[,] ... have intended ... that 

costs be considered .. .in §[74]12(n)(l)(A)." Id. at 27a. 

The panel majority also reasoned that Congress had 

anticipated that the factors EPA decides to consider 

in making an "appropriate and necessary" determination-and hence whether and how to regulate (or 

not) under §7 412(n)(l)(A)-can change over time. I d. 

at 35a ("[A]dministrations may differ and can change 

positions without legal jeopardy .... "). 

In a strongly worded dissent on the cost question, 

Judge Kavanaugh concluded that the "key statutory 

term ... 'appropriate' ... [is] the classic broad and all 

encompassing term that naturally and traditionally 

includes consideration of all the relevant factors, 

health and safety benefits on the one hand and costs 

on the other." Id. at 88a. In fact, the magnitude of 

the costs at issue in this rulemaking were so enormous that Judge Kavanaugh found EPA's neglect 

particularly egregious: 

The estimated cost of compliance with EPA's 

Final Rule is approximately $9.6 billion per 

year, by EPA's own calculation .... To put it in 

perspective, that amount would pay the annual health insurance premiums of about two 

million Americans .... Put simply, the Rule is 

"among the most expensive rules that EPA 

has ever promulgated." 

Id. at 82a (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). 

More recent federal government analyses demonstrate that EPA's costs estimates were, if anything, 

underestimated. While EPA projected that coal-fired 

retirements would be 4.7 gigawatts, the U.S. Energy 

Information Administration has estimated that the 
144 

21 

:MATS Rule will contribute to the retirement by 2016 

of 54 gigawatts of coal-fired generation capacity, or 

about 116 of total domestic coal-fired capacity.s The 

magnitude of these compliance costs is unprecedented. In 2011, EPA projected that total CAA compliance costs for EGUs, including the costs associated 

with regulation under the NAAQS, visibility, preconstruction and operating permit programs, and 

new source performance standards, would be about 

$10.4 billion annually by 2020,9 as compared to the 

s U.S. Energy Information Administration, Today in Energy, 

AE02014 Projects More Coal-Fired Power Plant Retirements by 

2016 Than Have Been Scheduled (Feb. 14, 2014), available at 

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=15031; see also 

Institute for Energy Research, Impact of EPA's Regulatory Assault on Power Plants: New Regulations to Take More than 72 

GW of Electricity Generation Offline and the Plant Closing Announcements Keep Coming... (Oct. 2014), available at 

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/policy/power-plantclosures/. 

9 EPA, The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 

2020, Final Report-Rev. A, at 3-8 (Apr. 2011), available at 

http://www.epa.gov/cleanairactbenefits/prospective2.html; see 

also Industrial Economics, Inc., Direct Cost Estimates for the 

Clean Air Act Second Section 812 Prospective Analysis, at 2-29 

& n. 77 (Feb. 20 11), available at 

http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/feb 11/costfullreport. pdf (explaining inclusion of Clean Air Mercury Rule costs). In 1999, EPA 

had estimated that total compliance of HAP regulation, across 

all source categories, would total $840 million by 2010. EPA, 

EPA-410-R-99-001, The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 

1990 to 2010, EPA Report to Congress at 25 (Nov. 1999), availa~ ~ 

http:/ /www.epa.gov/cleanairactbenefits/prospective 1. html? _ga= 

1.2612114 70.2101051446.1421202605 ("Benefits and Costs 

1990-20 10"). 
145 

22 

compliance costs of the :MATS Rule alone of about 

$9.6 billion annually.IO 

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 

This case involves a simple question: can EPA refuse to consider costs when determining whether it is 

"appropriate and necessary" to regulate EGU HAP 

emissions under §7412 of the Clean Air Act? Congressional intent on this question is clear. And the 

answer IS no. 

The Clean Air Act presents an intricate statutory 

regime, requiring EPA to undertake a variety of 

tasks, including making health determinations, conducting studies, and setting emission standards. 

Every time that the Act calls upon EPA to consider 

establishing emission standards, EPA is required to 

consider cost in some fashion. 

In keeping with this general approach to clean air 

regulation, Congress addressed EGU HAP emissions 

very differently from non-EGU HAP emissions under 

§7412. Non-EGU HAP emissions from source categories other than EG Us are subject to technologybased regulation whenever tonnage thresholds are 

exceeded. By contrast, in recognition of the numerous other programs that indirectly reduce EGU HAP 

emissions, Congress directed that EGU HAP emissions are to be regulated under §7412 only if EPA determines that "such [§7412] regulation" is "appropriate and necessary." Determining whether regulation 

under any of the specific emission standard-setting 

IO EPA's $9.6 billion cost figure focuses only on compliance 

costs, not indirect costs that EPA has elsewhere recognized, like 

effects on work force and consumers of electricity. Benefits and 

Costs 1990 to 2010, at iii. 
146 

23 

prov1s1ons of §7412 is "appropriate and necessary" 

requires conside1·ation of a number of factors, as is 

the case for emission standard-setting decisions under the Clean Air Act generally, including the public 

health impacts of EGU HAP emissions and the costs 

of regulation. EPA's refusal to consider cost under 

this broad and encompassing statutory language and 

in the context of this specific statutory framework is 

impermissible. 

When one examines the function of 

§7412(n)(1)(A), which is to determine whether §7412 

regulation is needed and is suitable to address residual risks that might remain after regulation of EGU 

HAP emissions under other programs, the unreasonableness of EPA's interpretation is underscored. Residual risk, by definition, presents the prospect of 

diminishing benefits for ever increasing regulatory 

costs. Disavowing any consideration of cost in this 

context caused EPA to act contrary to what is in the 

public inte1·est: to regulate EGU HAP emissions only 

if "appropriate." The imposition of $9.6 billion in 

costs to achieve $4 to $6 million in benefit should, at 

the very least, signal caution. Throwing caution to 

the wind, the panel endorsed EPA's refusal to consider cost because the word "cost" is not listed explicitly in the provision. But this word (and other relevant factors) also do not appear in statutory provisions calling for "public interest" regulation. When 

"appropriate and necessary" is read in a common 

sense way and in the context of §7412(n)(1)(A)'s purpose and objectives, those broad and encompassing 

terms compel consideration of cost. 

In refusing to consider cost, EPA erred. The economic consequences of its error are overwhelming. 
147 

24 

ARGUMENT 

In deciding whether it was "appropriate" to regulate EGU HAP emissions, EPA refused to consider 

the costs that regulation would impose. That much 

is not in dispute. Less clear is why EPA chose to be 

cost blind. 

In the Proposed MATS Rule, EPA "interpret[ed] 

the term 'appropriate' to not allow for the consideration of costs." Pet. App. 523a (emphasis added). This 

interpretation of "appropriate," EPA said, was "consistent with the overall structure of the CAA," insofar as "Congress did not authorize the consideration 

of costs" in making decisions on "listing" and "delisting" other source categories under §7 412(c). I d. at 

527a (emphasis added). In responding to public 

comments in the MATS rulemaking, however, EPA 

seemed to shift, claiming that, because "[c]ost does 

not have to be read into the definition of 'appropriate,"' MATS Rule, Pet. App. 212a (emphasis added), 

it was "reasonable" to make the "appropriate determination[] without considering costs." Id. at 210a; 

see also EPA's Responses to Public Comments on 

Proposed :MATS Rule, Vol. 1 (Dec. 2011), Docket No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20126, Pet. App. 509a. 

The panel majority offered similar, competing rationales for EPA's refusal to consider costs. Compare 

Pet. App. 26a (§7412(n)(1)(A) "neither requires EPA 

to consider costs nor prohibits EPA from doing so.") 

with id. at 27a. (Because Congress used the word 

"costs" in certain other provisions of §7 412, Congress 

could not "by using only the broad term 'appropriate' ... have intended ... that costs be considered ... in 

§ [7 4] 12(n)(l)(A)."). 
148 

25 

Regardless of the Chevron rationale, EPA's refusal to consider costs in determining whether it was 

"appropriate" to regulate EGU HAP emissions under 

§7412 was unlawful. 

I. The "Appropriate and Necessary" Decisional Standard in §7412(n)(l)(A) Embraces a Broad Range of Factors That Includes Costs. 

Section 7412(n)(1)(A), like other residual risk 

emission reduction provisions, calls upon EPA to 

identify risks of a particular kind ("hazards to public 

health") that are found to remain after implementation of other emission reduction provisions of the 

CAA. If no "hazards to public health" are identified 

in the § 7 412(n) study called for by Congress, no 

§7412 regulatory response by EPA is contemplated 

or authorized. If EPA finds a public health hazard 

that is reasonably anticipated to occur, however, 

§7412(n) requires EPA to focus on the EGU HAP 

emissions that cause that health hazard and to determine the degree to which that hazard would be 

reduced through "regulation [of those emissions] under" §7412. Finally, having identified the §7412 regulatory response, EPA must determine whether 

"such regulation" under §7412 is "appropriate and 

necessary." 

Both "appropriate" and "necessary" are terms 

that call for qualitative judgments influenced by a 

broad range of factors. The word "appropriate" 

means "suitable or proper in the circumstances." 

The New Oxford American Dictionary 76 (2d ed. 

2005). The word "necessary" means "required to be 

done, achieved, or present; needed; essential." Id. at 

1135. In the context of §7 412(n), the cost of achiev-
149 

26 

ing reductions and the size of those reductions are 

centrally relevant to determining whether "such regulation" of EGU emissions under §7412 is "appropriate and necessary" to address a health hazard. The 

size and seriousness of a health risk balanced 

against costs and other consequences of reducing 

that risk will determine whether a new level of control is "needed," whether the existing level is "proper," and whether the proposed §7412 regulatory response is "suitable" to address that risk. 

As discussed below, the "appropriate and necessary'' decisional standard contemplates that EPA 

make policy judgments regarding imposition of additional emissions regulation. Like other CAA provisions governing emission standard-setting decisions, 

including those based on residual risk, costs will always be a relevant consideration in making those 

policy judgments. See, e.g., Indus. Union Dep't, AFLCIO v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 708 (1980) 

(Marshall, Brennan, White and Blackmun, JJ ., dissenting) ("'[R]easonably necessary or appropriate' 

clauses are routinely inserted in regulatory legislation, and ... have uniformly been interpreted as general provisos that regulatory actions must bear a 

reasonable relation to th[e] statutory purposes."); id. 

at 704 (Occupational Safety and Health Act 

("OSHA") gave "'careful consideration' to ... whether 

the admittedly substantial costs were justified in 

light of the hazards" under the act's "necessary or 

appropriate" standard.); id. at 667 (Powell, J., concurring) (A standard "is neither 'reasonably necessary' nor 'feasible" .. .if it calls for expenditures wholly 

disproportionate to the expected health and safety 

benefits."). 
150 

27 

A. Congress Has Consistently Required Consideration of Costs in 

Making Decisions on CAA Emission 

Standards. 

The CAA authorizes a variety of different types of 

agency actions under numerous different air pollution control programs. Certain actions call for a finding that specific emissions contribute to pollution 

that endangers health or welfare. E.g., 42 U.S.C. 

§§7411(b)(1)(A) (new source performance standards), 

7521(a) (vehicle and engine emissions). Others provide for ambient standards that identify pollutant 

concentrations that are protective of public health or 

welfare. Cost is irrelevant to these health and welfare effects actions. §7409(b)(1), (d) (NAAQS). 

Whitman v. Am. Trucl?ing Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 471 

(2001) (holding that costs may not be considered in 

setting NAAQS under §7 409(b)); Coal. for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102, 118 (D.C. 

Cir. 2012) (per curiam), aff'd in part & rev'd in part, 

UARG v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014) (concluding 

that cost judgments are not part of "endangerment 

finding" in §7521(a)(1)). 

By contrast, every provision of the Act that authorizes EPA to address the establishment of emission standards for specific sources includes costs as a 

standard-setting consideration. See, e.g., 

§§7410(a)(2)(D) ("good neighbor" provision, which 

was interpreted in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584, 1607 (2014), to contemplate consideration of cost), 7411(b) & (d) (new and 

existing source performance standards), 7 412(d)(2) 

(MACT), 7475 (BACT), 7491 (BART), 7502 ("reasonably available control technology") & 7651f (nitrogen 

oxides "acid rain" emissions standards for EGUs). 
151 

28 

Consideration of cost in establishing standards 

regulating conduct is found across all regulatory 

statutes. See, e.g., Entergy Corp. v. Riverheeper, Inc., 

556 U.S. 208 (2009) (upholding EPA's use of costbenefit analysis in setting "best technology" cooling 

water intake requirements under the Clean Water 

Act); Am. Textile Mfrs. Inst., Inc. v. Donovan, 452 

U.S. 490 (1981) (OSHA). Emission control standards 

that are so stringent as to put sources out of business 

create their own public health and welfare risks, 

through impacts on both communities (e.g., lost tax 

base) and individuals (e.g., lost jobs).l 1 Cf. Pet. App .. 

78a ("[T]he centrality of cost consideration to proper 

regulatory decisionmaking" necessarily establishes 

"cost" as being among the "relevant factors" that a 

regulatory agency must normally take into account.). 

Consideration of cost-benefit relationships is especially relevant for emission standards that address 

residual emissions and risk. Whenever smaller increments of emissions are regulated, the costs to society of achieving those reductions increase.l2 Resid11 See Indus. Union Dep't, 448 U.S. at 669 (Powell, J., concurring) ("[A] standard-setting process that ignored economic considerations would result in a serious misallocation of resources 

and a lower effective level of safety than could be achieved under standards set with reference to the comparative benefits 

available at a lower cost."); Steve P. Calandrillo, Responsible 

Regulation: A Sensible Cost-Benefit, Rish Versus Risk Approach 

to Federal Health and Safety Regulation, 81 B.U. L. REV. 957, 

996 (2001) ("[W]ell-meaning regulations aimed at improving 

public safety by reducing certain risks sometimes unintentionally increase the probability of other risks."). 

12 See, e.g., Sheldon Meyers, Office of Radiation Programs, Office of Air and Radiation, EPA, Applications of De Minimis, in 

DE MINIMIS RISK 101, 102 (Chris Whipple ed., 1987) ("We all 

know that each decade of risk reduction has generally increased 
152 

29 

ual risk standard-setting necessarily involves an inquiry into both whether the increment of emissions 

of a pollutant that remains after earlier reductions of 

the pollutant is of continuing regulatory concern (i.e., 

poses a risk that is not de minimis) and, if so, whether those residual risks are worth regulating (i.e., 

what level of risk and risk reduction is achievable in 

light of costs, feasibility, and other factors). See EPA 

Residual Risk Report at 127.13 Without consideration of the consequences of regulating, the increasing 

costs of regulating and the declining risks posed by 

progressively smaller increments of a pollutant can 

lead to a gross misallocation of resources and "extreme disparities" between costs and benefits. See 

Entergy Corp., 556 U.S. at 224; VICIOUS CIRCLE at 11 

(Ignoring consequences can result in "standards so 

stringent ... that the regulatory action ultimately imposes high costs without achieving significant additional safety benefits."). 

costs and decreased benefits-it frequently is relatively cheap 

to reduce risks from 0 to 90%, more expensive to go from 90 to 

99%, and more expensive still to go from 99 to 99.9%."); see also 

STEPHEN BREYER, BREAKING THE VICIOUS CIRCLE: TOWARD EFFECTIVE RISK REGULATION 11 (1993) (''VICIOUS CIRCLE") ("Removing that last little bit [of risk] can involve limited technological choice, high cost ... and endless argument."); Stephen Breyer, Forward: Beyond the Vicious Circle, 3 NYU ENVTL. L.J. 251, 

252 (1994-95). 

13 See also Meyers, supra note 12, at 101 ("There are two possibilities for deciding that one eventually reaches a point where 

further risk reduction is not warranted: Either (1) the cost of 

further risk reduction becomes very great in relation to the 

small additional incremental benefits, or (2) the risk .. .is so 

small that it becomes inconsequential.. .. "). 
153 

30 

B. Section 7412(n)(l)(A) Is a Residual 

Risk Provision. 

Congress in §7412 addressed regulation of resid· 

ual risk in several places. And in each, Congress instructed EPA to consider a broad range of factors, 

either by listing a range of relevant factors, see, e.g., 

§7412(£)(2), or by using regulatory terms that require 

subjective judgments made after considering myriad 

factors relevant to those judgments. See, e.g., id. 

§7 412(m), (n)(1)(A). 

For example, in order to regulate residual public 

health risk associated with emissions regulated under §7412(f), Congress said the Administrator must 

apply the "ample margin of safety" standard "as in 

effect before November 15, 1990." §7412(f)(2)(A). 

This formulation ensures consideration of all of the 

consequences of residual risk regulation, including 

costs. See Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 529 

F.3d 1077, 1081-83 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (discussing 

§7412(f)(2)); EPA Residual Risk Report at ES-11, 128 

(explaining that "relevant factors" under the ample 

margin of safety standard "includeD costs, economic 

impacts, technological feasibility, and any other relevant factor''). 

Where regulation of the emission of specific pollutants under §7412 fails to resolve serious adverse 

health or environmental risks to the Great Lakes 

and other waters, the Administrator is authorized to 

regulate those individual pollutants as "necessary 

and appropriate" to address such residual risks. 

§7412(m). And where "hazards to public health" 

from an EGU HAP emission remain "after imposition 

of the requirements of this [Act]," the Administrator 

may regulate those emissions "under this section," if 
154 

31 

the Administrator finds "such regulation" is "appropriate and necessary," after considering the remaining public health risks and "alternative control strategies for emissions which may warrant regulation 

under this section." §7412(n)(1)(A). 

In this statutory context, cost is a factor that 

must be considered for EPA to resolve whether its 

proposed §7412 regulatory response for residual 

health hazard is "appropriate and necessary." Section 112 regulation that addresses minor health risks 

at huge costs cannot, in any common understanding 

of the term, be "compelled" and "proper." 

The panel majority concedes, as it must, that "the 

word 'appropriate' might require cost consideration 

in some contexts." Pet. App. 26a. But, according to 

the panel, "such a reading of 'appropriate' is unwarranted here." Id. Why "unwarranted"? The panel 

majority claims that "[t]hroughout §[74]12, Congress 

mentioned costs explicitly where it intended EPA to 

consider them," but failed to explicitly list costs as a 

relevant factor in §7412(n)(1)(A). Id. at 26a-27a. 

But the word "cost" is absent from numerous CAA 

provisions under which cost is a relevant factor in 

EPA policy decisions regarding further regulation of 

emissions. See, e.g., EME Homer City, 134 S. Ct. at 

1607 ("The Agency has chosen, sensibly in our view, 

to reduce the amount easier, i.e., less costly, to eradicate, and nothing in the text of the Good Neighbor 

Provision precludes that choice."); Ass'n of Battery 

Recyclers, 716 F.3d at 673 (the fact that "section 

[7 4] 12(d)(6) itself makes no reference to cost" does 

not bar consideration of cost); 74 Fed. Reg. 30,366, 

30,371 (June 25, 2009) (finding that the legislative 

history "clearly provides that EPA may consider 
155 

32 

costs" under §7412(d)(5) even though the term does 

not appear in the provision). 

When Congress uses broad terms that call for 

subjective policy judgments regarding the regulation 

of private conduct, Congress is requiring that agencies consider every factor relevant to making that 

judgment. In the context of broad subjective decisional standards (like "appropriate and necessary"), 

therefore, congressional silence on factors that must 

be considered assures consideration of the broadest 

range of relevant factors, see, e.g., Indus. Union 

Dep't., 448 U.S. at 708 (Marshall, Brennan, White, 

and Blackmun, JJ., dissenting), whereas listing one 

or two factors in such a provision could be interpreted as a congressional intent to limit relevant factors 

to those listed. Indeed, the logic of the majority 

turns syntax on its head, leading to absurdity. 

Construing "silence" as a prohibition would give 

rise to the "obvious logical impossibility" that EPA 

was permitted to disregard "all potentially relevant 

factors." Entergy Corp. 556 U.S. at 222. In other 

words, if the absence of the word "cost" in 

§7412(n)(l)(A) permitted (if not required) EPA to disregard cost in determining whether regulation of 

EGU HAP emissions was "appropriate and necessary," then taken to its (il)logical end, no factor 

would be relevant in making determinations under 

"public interest," "reasonable," "public necessity" and 

similar broad, qualitative decisional standards. EPA 

and the panel's interpretive approach would transform such standards into factor-blind directives for 

which an agency, at best, would have unrestricted 

discretion to consider only the factors it wishes to 

consider, thereby fashioning a regulatory decisional 

standard of the agency's creation. This is an inter-
156 

33 

pretive approach that "surely proves too much." Entergy Corp., 556 U.S. at 222. 

The six CAA provisions cited by the panel majority for the proposition that Congress' failure to mention "cost" in §7412(n)(l)(A) requires a cost-blind determination, see Pet. App. 26a-27a, are either irrelevant (because they do not address the establishment 

of emission standards) or actually confirm the important role that cost considerations must play in 

any residual risk evaluation. First, three of the provisions on which the panel majority relied are reports to Congress that have no role in establishing 

emission standards under §7412. See §7412(f)(l), 

(n)(l)(B) & (s). They say nothing about Congress' use 

of "appropriate and necessary" in the §7412(n)(l)(A) 

residual risk evaluation. 

Second, the panel majority cites §7 412(d)(2) in 

support of its cost-blind interpretation of 

§7412(n)(l)(A). Pet. App. 26a-27a. This is an emission standard-setting provision which, as discussed 

supra pp. 7-8, explicitly requires the consideration of 

cost and other factors in establishing :MACT standards based upon control technologies identified applying the §7 412(d)(3) criteria. This provision simply 

underscores the relevance of costs in decisions regarding source emission standards. 

Next, the panel majority cites §7412(f)(2)(A), 

which authorizes public health "residual risk" regulation for pollutants for which control technology 

standards have been established under §7412(d). 

Congress explicitly stated that §7412(f)(2)(A) did not 

disturb the interpretation set forth in a 1989 HAP 

rule in which EPA considered costs and a range of 

other factors in evaluating whether there was an 
157 

34 

"ample margin of safety." §7412(f)(2)(B); see also supra p. 4; 71 Fed. Reg. 76,603, 76,608 (Dec. 21, 2006) 

(discussing §7412(f) history). This provision highlights the relevance of cost in decisions regarding residual risk standard-setting. 

The final provision cited by the panel majority is 

§7 412(d)(8)(A)(i), which provides specific MACT 

standard-setting instructions for coke ovens. In this 

provision, Congress stated that in evaluating the "effectiveness" of certain controls and practices, and in 

determining their "suitability for [their] use on new 

and existing coke oven batteries," "costs" are relevant. §7412(d)(8)(A)(i). If the controls and practices 

identified under this provision reduce emissions 

more than the coke oven technologies identified under the §7412(d)(3) "floor" criteria, see supra p. 8, 

then this provision merely confirms what the 

§7412(d)(2) emission standard-setting provision requires: Costs must be considered in setting MACT 

standards. If they do not, then this provision simply 

authorizes consideration of a broader range of technologies for coke oven MACT standard-setting than 

the (d)(3) "floor" criteria would. In either case, the 

provision merely underscores congressional intent 

that costs be considered in setting coke oven emission standards. This is hardly a statement that costs 

cannot be considered in deciding to regulate EGU 

HAP emissions. 

In sum, §7 412(n)(l)(A) requires the Administrator 

to regulate EGU HAP emissions under §7412 only if 

she finds "such [§7412] regulation" is "appropriate 

and necessary." Section 7412(n), read in context, 

says what other emission control provisions say: 

EPA must consider costs and other consequences of 
158 

35 

regulation in making decisions regarding standards 

that regulate residual risk. 

C. The Panel Majority's Reliance on 

Whitman Was Misplaced. 

Recognizing that nothing in §7412(n) directs EPA 

not to consider costs, the panel majority invokes this 

Court's decision in lVhitman v. American Trucking 

Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457 (2001), in order to "create[] a 

negative implication that costs are an unnecessary 

consideration" under §7 412(n)(l)(A). Pet. App. 87a 

(Kavanaugh, J., concurring in part and dissenting in 

part). In seeking to establish such a negative implication, the panel majority was not only "overreading" Whitman but, more importantly, was ignoring the distinction throughout the Act between 

threshold actions premised on public health or welfare effects findings and actions premised on judgments regarding the degree to which stationary 

source emissions should be further regulated. Id. 

Whitman addressed the level of air quality for 

specific pollutants that would protect public health 

or welfare. See §7409(b)(1). As discussed above, 

health and welfare effects are the only factors relevant to NAAQS determinations, as well as to "endangerment" findings found throughout the CAA. 

By contrast, in making decisions regarding CAA 

emission standards that apply to individual sources, 

feasibility, availability, cost, and other considerations are always relevant. As a result, Congress has 

required, explicitly or implicitly, that costs be considered in CAA determinations regarding emissions 

regulation. See supra p. 7. 

If §7412(n) required that EPA regulate EGU HAP 

emissions under §7412(d) whenever the Administra-
159 

36 

tor found a "health hazard" associated with any EGU 

HAP emission, it would be similar to the CAA's "endangerment" provisions. However, that is not what 

§7412(n)(1)(A) says. EPA's obligations under 

§7412(n) do not end with a threshold health finding; 

they begin with such a finding. After EPA identifies 

an EGU HAP emission creating a remaining "health 

hazard," EPA must (1) determine the degree of EGU 

HAP emission regulation that the identified health 

hazard triggers "under" §7412, and then (2) decide 

whether "such regulation" of EGU emissions under 

§7412 is "appropriate and necessary." In other words, 

in deciding whether or not "such [§7412] regulation" 

is "appropriate and necessary," EPA will resolve the 

nature and extent of EGU HAP emissions regulation 

under §7412. Once EPA has determined the degree 

to which EGU HAPs would be regulated, Congress 

directed EPA to resolve whether "such (§7412] regulation" is "appropriate and necessary," a phrase that 

contemplates a careful balancing of the costs and 

benefits of that further regulation of EGU emissions. 

II. EPA Was Also Required to Consider 

Costs as a Matter of Reasoned Decisionmaking. 

In Motor Vehicles Manufacturers Ass'n v. State 

Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 

(1983), this Court made clear that, while an agency 

decision would be upheld provided that, among other 

things, the agency had taken into "consideration ... the relevant factors," the agency's decisionmaking would be found unreasonable where the 

agency had "entirely failed to consider an important 

aspect of the problem." 463 U.S. at 42-43 (emphasis 

added). Here, no one disputes that EPA "entirely 

failed to consider" costs when it found that it was 
160 

37 

"appropriate" to regulate all EGU HAP emissions. 

That being the case, EPA's refusal to consider costs 

can reflect reasoned decision-making only if: 

(1) Congress itself precluded EPA from considering 

costs; or (2) costs are not an "important aspect of the 

problem" (i.e., a "relevant factor"). 

Ultimately, neither EPA nor the panel majority 

was willing to take the position that EPA was prohibited from considering costs. Nor did either EPA 

or the panel majority explain how it could ever be the 

case that costs were not a relevant factor. 

As Judge Kavanaugh noted, the "consideration of 

costs" is commonly understood to be "a central and 

well-established part of the regulatory decisionmaking process." Pet. App. 82a. This "centrality of 

cost consideration to proper regulatory decisionmaking," he further pointed out, necessarily establishes "cost" as being among the factors for which a 

regulatory agency must normally account, a conclusion underscored by the fact that "'every real choice 

requires a decisionmaker to weigh advantages 

against disadvantages, and disadvantages can be 

seen in terms of (often quantifiable) costs."' Id. at 

78a-79a (quoting Entergy Corp., 556 U.S. at 232 

(opinion of Breyer, J.)). 

The only response that the panel majority could 

muster is telling: "[W]hile the dissent insists on 'the 

centrality of cost consideration to proper regulatory 

decisionmaking," the panel majority argued, "Whitman makes clear the Supreme Court believes that 

Congress does not necessarily agree." Pet. App. 33a. 

"Nor," continued the panel majority, "is Whitman the 

only case in which courts have found that Congress 

legislated in a way the dissent would find irrational." 
161 

38 

Id. at 33a-34a (citing Am. Textile Mfrs., 452 U.S. at 

511-12). 

This Court's precedents do not support the panel 

majority's assertion. The panel majority asserts that 

American Textile Manufacturers stands for the proposition that cost is not a central consideration in regulatory decision-making. Pet. App. 34a (citing Am. 

Textile Mfrs., 452 U.S. at 511-12). The Court in that 

case did not say that cost was irrelevant, but rather 

only that "specific language" in the OSHA provision 

at issue, 29 U.S.C. §655(b)(5), made clear that "costbenefit analysis .. .is not required ... because feasibility 

analysis is." 452 U.S. at 509, 511. 

OSHA contained another provision that defined 

the term "occupational safety and health standard" 

as "'a standard which requires conditions ... reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide 

safe or healthful employment and places of employment."' Id. at 512 (quoting 29 U.S.C. §652(8) (emphasis added by Court)). While the Court found that 

the provision must be read in concert with the feasibility provision and could not provide an "overriding 

requirement of cost-benefit analysis," id. at 513, the 

Court also observed that, "[t]aken alone, the phrase 

'reasonably necessary or appropriate' might be construed to contemplate some balancing of the costs and 

benefits of a standard." Id. at 512 (emphasis added). 

In this case, even if some limitation did exist on 

using the cost-benefit method of analysis under 

§7412(n) (akin to the "feasibility" section in OSHA), 

there is nothing about Am. Textile Manufacturers 

that eliminates EPA's responsibility to consider cost 

in some manner. Cf. id. at 513 n.31 ("[A]s the legislative history makes plain ... any standard that was 
162 

39 

not economically or technologically feasible would a 

fortiori not be 'reasonably necessary or appropriate' 

under [OSHA]."). Indeed, in American Textile Manufacturers, no party disagreed that cost must be considered; they disagreed merely how and how much. 14 

In the final analysis, the panel majority's argument strikes at a straw man. No one would suggest 

that it is "irrational" for Congress, in its legislative 

judgment, to preclude a regulatory agency, in a given 

setting, from taking costs into account in adopting 

regulations defining pollutant concentrations protective of public health and welfare. Instead, the pertinent question here is: where costs are clearly relevant, as is the case with regulatory decisions involving emission standards, and Congress has not limited the factors that may be considered to exclude 

costs, could it ever be "reasonable" for an agency to 

forgo such consideration? This Court's decision in 

State Farm says no.l5 

14 The panel majority also cited National Ass'n of Clean Air 

Agencies v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1221 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ("NACAA"), as 

supporting EPA's decision not to consider cost. Pet. App. 26a. 

In fact, in that case, no one disputed the relevance of cost; the 

only debate was over the weight to be given that consideration. 

See NACAA, 489 F.3d at 1226. 

15 See also Entergy Corp., 556 U.S. at 232-33 (Breyer, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (Noting as to another 

provision of the CAA that "every real [regulatory] choice requires a decisionmaker to weigh advantages against disadvantages, and disadvantages can be seen in terms of (often 

quantifiable) costs .... [A]n absolute prohibition [on cost-benefit 

analysis] would bring about irrational results. As the respondents themselves say, it would make no sense to require [power] 

plants to 'spend billions to save one more fish or plankton."'). 
163 

40 

In this case, there is no dispute that the 1\tlATS 

Rule will impose billions of dollars of costs. In the 

face of these real-world realities, EPA's bland assertion that "nothing about the definition [of 'appropriate'] compels a consideration of costs," and that it 

was "appropriate to regulate EGUs under CAA section [74]12" simply "because EPA has determined 

that HAP emissions from EGUs pose hazards to public health and the environment," Pet. App. 211a, is 

not only unreasonable, it borders on the irrational. 

Cost here is an "important aspect of the problem" 

that EPA was required to consider in any exercise of 

reasoned decision-making. 

III. Under §7412(n), Costs Must Be Considered in the Context of Emission Standard-Setting Decisions for the Specific 

EGU HAP Emissions That Pose Health 

Hazards. 

Whether the term "regulation under this section" 

in §7412(n)(l)(A) means regulation under §7412(d), 

as EPA and the panel below concluded, 16 pollutantspecific standards under §7412(n) focused on "unacceptable" public health risks, as petitioners below 

argued, or some other type of regulation under 

16 In the MATS Rule, EPA interpreted §7412(n) to mandate 

§7412(d) standards that control all HAPs emitted by EGUs, so 

long as one HAP emitted by one EGU is found to pose either a 

residual health or environmental risk. The panel below affirmed this interpretation of §7412(n). Pet. App. 41a-43a. In 

view of the $9.6 billion cost associated with §7 412(d) regulation 

of all EGU HAPs, a pollutant-specific "risk management" approach to regulation under §7412(n)-an option EPA proposed 

in the 2004 Proposed Correction Rule-could provide EPA 

broader authority to regulate EGU HAP emissions than 

§7412(d) regulation. 
164 

41 

§7412, EPA must identify the specific EGU emission 

reductions that "regulation under" §7 412 would require in order to be able to resolve whethe1· "such 

regulation" is "appropriate and necessary." 

Residual risk regulation focuses on specific types 

of harm caused by specific pollutants. For example, 

§7412(£)(2) calls for additional regulation of HAP 

emissions that pose either an unacceptable residual 

"public health" risk or residual "environmental'' risk 

by establishing standards that "provide ... public 

health" protection or "prevent ... adverse environmental effect." Similarly, §7 412(m) calls for additional 

regulation of residual "health" or "environmental" 

risks "as may be necessary and appropriate to prevent such effects [in identified waterbodies]." If control technology regulation of a HAP leaves no residual health or environmental risk of concern, no residual risk regulation of that HAP is required or authorized under §7412(£) or (m). 

Section 7412(n)(1)(A) calls upon EPA to perform a 

study of the "hazards to public health" associated 

with EGU HAP emissions that remain "after imposition of the requirements of this [Act]." To address 

any residual public health risks identified in that 

study, EPA must describe "alternative control strategies for [those] emissions which may warrant regulation under this section." Thus, like §7 412(f) and 

(m), the §7 412(n)(1)(A) residual risk program focuses 

not on all HAPs, but on the specific remaining EGU 

HAP emissions that present risks that may warrant 

regulation. Unlike §7412(f) and (m), however, 

§7412(n)(1)(A) focuses only on residual "hazards to 

public health," and not on residual environmental 

risks. 
165 

42 

In the §7412(n)(1)(A) rulemaking, EPA made 

three independent findings. For mercury, EPA found 

a health risk associated with EGU emissions across 

the entire EGU source category. Supra p. 18; see also supra p. 16. For non-mercury metals, EPA found 

a health risk above the one-in-one million level for 

only five EGU boilers. Supra pp. 13-14. For acid 

gases, EPA found no health hazard, but instead "potential" adverse environmental effects. Proposed 

MATS Rule, NMA App. 1324a. 

Reflecting these findings, EPA could estimate 

public health benefits ($4-$6 million) only for EGU 

mercury emissions. EPA estimated no health benefits associated with reducing other metals. In the 

case of acid gas emissions, EPA conceded that they 

do not pose any health risk. Proposed MATS Rule, 

Pet. App. 542a-543a; see also supra p. 14. Perhaps 

reflecting that the EGU acid gas emissions represent 

an exceedingly small percentage of the EGU emissions regulated by the CAA's Acid Deposition Control 

Program, see supra pp. 14-15, EPA was unable to 

identify any adverse environmental effect in the 

United States caused by this small fraction of already comprehensively regulated EGU emissions. 

See EPRI MATS Comments, JA 398-399. 

By contrast, EPA estimates that §7412(d) MACT 

standards for EGUs would collectively cost the industry $9.6 billion annually, raising the question 

whether such regulation could ever be an "appropriate and necessary" regulatory response. Where 

overall costs and benefits are so wildly out of balance, whether one or more pollutants are driving 

that overall imbalance is an important aspect of the 

problem. To say that Congress authorized EPA to 

regulate EGU HAP emissions posing a residual 
166 

43 

health risk in order to trigger regulation, and at the 

same time required regulation of EGU HAP emissions that pose no residual health risk, would contradict the language of the statute and completely 

sever the link articulated in the "appropriate and 

necessary" clause between the need to regulate and a 

rational regulatory response. 

In this rulemaking, the annual control cost for acid gas emissions is approximately one-half of the $9.6 

billion total annual :MATS compliance cost while 

public health benefits are "zero." See supra p. 19; see 

also supra p. 14. For trace metals, control costs are 

less, and there are only five EGU boilers that might 

pose health risks slightly above the one-in-one million negligible risk level. See supra pp. 13-14. Finally, while mercury controls are estimated to produce 

small benefits, those benefits would come at a cost of 

well over $1 billion annually. See UARG Comments 

on Proposed :MATS Rule, JA 807. 

Because cost of regulation is a relevant consideration under §7412(n), EPA should at the least have to 

explain why a §7 412 regulatory response that requires regulation of specific EGU HAP emissions 

that pose negligible public health risks and no quantifiable adverse environmental effects, at a cost of 

billions of dollars annually, could be found to be "appropriate and necessary." 
167 

44 

CONCLUSION 

The MATS Rule is based on an unlawful interpretation ofthe CAA and should be declared invalid. 

January 20, 2015 Respectfully submitted, 

F. WILLIAM BROWNELL 

(Counsel of Record) 

HENRY V. NICKEL 

LEE B. ZEUGIN 

ELIZABETH L. HORNER 

HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP 

2200 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE, NW 

WASHINGTON,D.C.20037 

(202) 955-1500 

b brownell@h unton.com 

Counsel for Petitioner 

Utility Air Regulatory Group 

RESPONDENTS IN SUPPORT OF 

PETITIONER JOINING IN THIS BRIEF 

LESLIE SUE RITTS 

RITTS LAW GROUP, PLLC 

THE CARRIAGE HOUSE 

620 FORT WILLIAMS 

PARKWAY 

ALEXANDRIA, VA 22304 

(703) 823-2292 

LSRitts@ 

rittslawgroup.com 

Counsel for American 

Public Power Association 

DENNIS LANE 

STINSON LEONARD STREET 

LLP 

1775 PENNSYLVANIA 

AVENUE, NW, SUITE 800 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 

(202) 785-9100 

dennis .lane@ 

stinsonleonard.com 

PARTHENIA B. EVANS 

STINSON LEONARD STREET 

LLP 
168 

BART E. CASSIDY 

KATHERINE L. VACCARO 

~NKO,GOLD,KATCHER 

&Fox, LLP 

401 CITY A VENUE 

SUITE 901 

BALA CYNWYD, PA 

19004 

(484) 430-5700 

bcassidy@ 

mankogold.com 

Counsel for ARIPPA 

MICHAEL NASI 

JACKSON WALKER LLP 

100 CONGRESS A VENUE 

SUITE 1100 

AUSTIN, TX 78701 

(512) 236-2000 

mnasi@jw .com 

Counsel for Gulf Coast 

Lignite Coalition 

45 

1201 WALNUT STREET 

SUITE 2900 

KANSAS CITY, MO 64106 

(816) 842-8600 

parthy .evans@ 

stinsonleonard.com 

Counsel for Kansas City 

Board of Public Utilities 

ERIC GROTEN 

VINSON & ELKINS LLP 

2801 VIA FORTUNA 

SUITE 100 

AUSTIN, TX 78746-7568 

(512) 542-8709 

egroten@velaw .com 

Counsel for White Stallion 

Energy Center, LLC 
169 

Scott Pruit1. Trump·s E.P.A. Pick. Racked Industry Donor,s Over Regulators· The New York Times 

D 

u.s. 

Scott Pruitt, Trump's E.P.A. Pick, Backed 

Industry Donors Over Regulators 

By ERIC LIPTON and CORAl, DAVR.~PORT JAN.14, 2017 

D 

https:/iwww.nytlmes.com/2017!01/14/us/scott·pmitt·trump·ep.a·pick.html?_r=O[l/24/2017 6:23:04 PM} 
170 

Scott Pruitt, Trump's E.P.A Pick, Backed fndustry Donors Over Regulators· The New York Times 

https://wv.•w.nytimes.com/20 17/0 1114/us/scott-pruitHrump-epa-pick.html'? _r=O[ I /24/2017 6:23;04 PMJ 
171 

Scott Pruitt, !rump's E.P.A Pick. Racked Industry Donors Over Regulators- The NC\\ York Times 

Si·ou l'ruit!. tbl' Oklahom:1 attonw} )!;('H(T<ll, i:; Pn·<,ident-('lvet Domtld .J. Tmmp';,. numim•p io kad thv Emirmmwntal 

Protedion 

WASHINGTON- A legal fight to clean up tons of chicken manure fouling 

the 1-vaters of Oklahoma's bucolic northeastern corner- much of it from 

neighboring Arkansas- was in full swing six years ago \·d1en the 

conservative la\vyer Scott Pruitt took office as Oklahoma's attorney generaL 

His response: Put on the brakes. 

Rother than push f()r a fcleral judge to punish the companies by extracting 

perhaps tens of millions of dollars in damages, Oklahoma's ne\v chief law 

enforcement officer quietlv negotiated a d1'<ll1o"~jmph'ffilJl.\:..tlliwm>bJ~!l1 

illdhill:. 

The moYe came after he had taken tens of thousands of dollars in campaign 

contributions from executives and la\"}'ers for the poultry industry. 

It was one of a series of instances in which Mr. Pruitt put cooperation with 

industry before confrontation as he sought to blunt the impact of federal 

environmental policies in his state- against oil, gas, agriculture and other 

interests. His antipathy to federal regulation- he c.; ned the EndrcuJJlll:.[Llal 

fl:Ql<!..d~- in many \vays defined his tenure as 

Oklahoma's attorne_y general. 

Now, Mr. Pruitt, tnmwd to head Donald ,f. JnLmp's Em~jronmrntal 

ProtectimL_'\g_~.n~,l:, ·will have the opportunity to engineer a radical shift in 

Washington. If confirmed by the Senate, he is expected to she h-e the Obama 

administration's aggressiYe environmental enforcement and embrace a 

more collaborative approach with the industries that the agency is charged 

with po1icing. many of \Vhich haYe helped him advance his political career. 

The impact \Yould stretch from the nation's waterways to the planet's 

climate, since the E.P.A. carries out and enforces rules to combat global 

\.Yarming. 

'·He has ad\'ocated and stood up for the profits of business~ be it the poultry 

companies or the energy industry and other polluters, at the expense of 

people who haYe to drink the water or breathe the air~" said Mark 

Dericbsweiler, who led the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality 

dhision responsible for .o.Ycrc;eping. the poultr)·-related cleanup. Mr. 

Derichsweiler retired in 2015 after 40 years with the state, frustrated \·dth 

Mr. Pruitfs approach. 

http~: /ww\\.nytime~.com -'20 17/01/ 14/us/scott-pruitt-trump-epa-plck.html? _r=O[ 1124/2017 6:23:04 PM) 
172 

Scott Pruitt, Trump's E.P.A. Pick, Backed lnduStT)' Donors Over Regulators- The Ne\vYork Times 

Alg<w. mused hy phosphoru;.. and nitrates in chicken manure, on a rof'k pulhl from the Illinois River in Tahlequah, Okla. 

' 

Mr. Pruitt declined a request to comment. But his supporters contend that 

his record demonstrates a deeply held philosophy that states understand 

their needs best and should be allowed to regulate their own environment. 

On Thursday, a eoalition of 23 powerful consen.rative advocacy groups 

endorsed Mr. Pruitt's nomination, in advance of his confirmation hearing, 

set for Wednesday. 

"Some claim Mr. Pruitt opposes clean air and water. This could not be 

further from the truth," wrote t~li, which include the political action 

committee Club for Growth; the American Energy Alliance, which has 

ad,ised Mr. Trump on energy policy; and Americans for Tax Reform, the 

group founded by the anti-tax lobbyist Grover Norquist. Mr. Pruitt, the 

endorsement said, "understands that many of the nation's challenges 

regarding clean air and water are best met at the state and local level." 

https://w.,.,w.nytimes.com/2017/0l/14/us!scott-pruitHrump•epa·pick.htrnl?_r=Orl/24/2017 6:23:04 PM] 
173 

Scott Pruirt. Tn1mp"s E.P.A. Pick. Backed Industry Donors Over Regulators- The Ne\\ York Times 

Mr. Pruitt, if confirmed., wi11 take over the agency in an odd position: He has 

spent the last seven years suin~ it to block regulations that he would be 

expected to put into effect and enforce. Some legal scholars say he should 

recuse himself from major pending environmental matters, \vhile groups 

like the Environmental Defense Fund are urging Congress to reject his 

confirmation. 

"The president's ehoices deserve a lot of deference from Congress and even 

cm·ironmental groups," said Fred Krupp, president of the Etl\'i.ronmental 

Defense Fund. "But at some point when the nominee has spent his entire 

career attempting to dismantle emironmcntal protections, it becomes 

unacceptable. That's why Mr. Pruitt is the first E.P.A. nominee from either 

party that the Environmental Defense Fund has opposed in our so-year 

history." 

Some experts say that while returning more authority to states can be 

desirable in some cases, environmental protection is probably not one of 

them. Smog and toxic chemicals that foul the air and \Vaterways of one state 

may originate from one or several others, necessitating federal oyersight of 

pollution. 

"Pollution doesn"t respect state boundaries,'' said Patrick A. Parenteau, a 

professor of environmental law at Vermont Lm'"· SchooL "States have limited 

ability to regulate pollution from outside the state, and almost every state is 

downstream or dmvnvdnd from other pollution." 

Case in point: tbe "Green Country"' chicken battle that Mr. Pruitt inherited 

in eastern Oklahoma. The phosphorus and nitrates in chicken manure v;ere 

causing algae bloom.-; in the ponds, streams and lakes of the 1.1-million acre 

Illinois RiYcr watershed, which reaches from Arkansas into Oklahoma. 

In 2005, Attorney General Dre\\" Edmondson of Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt's 

predecessor, SlLC..d Tyson Food, Cargill Turkey and a dozen other major 

poultiJ· producers for damages caused. by the pollution and to force them to 

change the way they disposPd of 300,000 tons a year of animal waste. 

https:;/www .nyt!mcs.cotn'20 17/0 11!-l-/u~/scott-prultt-trump-epa-plck.lltml? __ r=0[1/24/20 J 7 6:23.04 PM J 
174 

S~:ott PruitL Trump·s LP.i\. Pick. Backed Industry Donor~ 0\oer Regulator~- l"hc New York Tulles 

Document: Pruittv. EPA: 

14 Challenges oflWA 

Rules by the Oklahoma 

Attorney General 

As Mr. Pruitt ran for election, at least $4o,ooo in contributions poured into 

his campaign from nearly 30 executives at poult11· companies named in the 

lawsuit or attorneys at lav.,: firms representing them, including Mark 

Simmons, the founder of Simmons Foods; Donald .J. Smith, then the chief 

executive of Tysons Foods; and Gary Weeks, a lawyer listed on the court 

papers as; representing George's, another company targeted in the lawsuit, 

according to data assembled by the nonprofit EnYironmental Working 

Group and confirmed by The Ne"v York Times. That money represents about 

4 percent of the total $1 million he raised in the 2010 campaign,Le£.Urd.s. 

After Mr. Pruitt took owr, instead of pushing the federal judge for a ruling 

that, sen~n years later, still hasn't been issued, he negotiated an agreement 

with Arkansas and the poultry companies to conduct a study of the 

appropriate leYel of phosphorus in the Illinois RiYcr. 

''Regulation through litigation is wrong in my- Yiew," Mr. Pruitt~ 

Oklahomanll!.:.~ in 201,7. "That was not a decision my office made. It 

·was a case we inherited." 

.J. D. Strong, director of Oklahoma's Wildlife Department and the state's 

former Secretar:y of Em ironment, praised Mr. Pruitt for negotiating the 

settlement. 

llttps ,/\\•vw n)time~ ~:om120\7101/14'uslscott-pruitt-trump-epa-pick.html?_r=O(l/24/2017 6·23:04 PMJ 
175 

Scott Pruitt, Trump·s E.P.A. Pick, Backed Industry Donors Over Regulators- The Ne'v Ymk Times 

"You can't force a judge to rule," Mr. Strong said. "Pruitt didn't sit back and 

wait or badger the judge for a ruling. He worked to get the states of 

Oklahoma and Arkansas around the table." 

A spokesman from Tyson Food noted that the contributions to Mr. Pruitt's 

campaign were made by the company's executives and Pmployees 

including two former chief executives and members of the Tyson familyrather than by the company itself. 

''We'll point out that our employees are encouraged to participate in the 

election process of public officials at all levels, and are at liberty to make 

personal contributions to any campaign as they see fit," VVorth Sparkman, 

the spokesman for Tyson, said. 

Rut Mr. Pruitt quietly allowed the expiration of a 2003 cwreeJne.ill that Mr. 

Edmondson helped negotiate vdth Arkansas to reduce poultry waste 

pollution - and to monitor the progress - \Vithout seeking another formal 

extension of the deal. And Mr. Pruitt shut down the specialized unit of four 

attorneys and a criminal investigator that had helped initiate the lmvsuit 

against the 14 poultl}' companies. 

https://\\ ww.nytimes com/20 17/01114/ustscott-pruitt-trump-cpa-pick.html? _ r=O[ i/24'2017 6:23.04 PM] 
176 

Scott Pruitt, Trump's E.P.A. Pick, Backed Industry Donors Over Regulators- The New York Times 

That environmental unit had broad jurisdiction, forcing pork-producing 

farmers to spend millions of dollars on their own cleanups and collecting 

tens of millions of dollars to clean up toxic sites in the state, including 

poisonous waste left at an abandoned lead and zinc mine known as ill 

~ 

Mr. Pruitt, in response to questions, provided a Jist ofenYironmental 

enforcement acti.Q.M taken dming his tenure, but the list includes cases that 

were largely initiated under Mr. Pruitt's predecessor, Mr. Edmondson. 

A spokesman for Mr. Pruitt said that while the environmental unit had been 

closed, environmental cases continued to be handled by the state solicitor 

https://w\vw.nytimes.com/2017 /0 J/14/us/scott•pruitt-trump-epa-pick.html? _FO[I/24/20 17 6:23:04 PM] 
177 

Scott Pruitt, Trump's E.P.A. Pick. Backed lndu~lr) Donors Over Regulators- The Nev. York Time~ 

general's unit. "Under the leadership of Attorney General Pruitt, this team 

has held bad actors accountable and protected stewardship of Oklahoma's 

natural resources." 

But Mr_ Edmondson said that prosecution of such environmental crimes fell 

as a result of the shuttering of the unit. "Under his tenure as attorney 

general, 1 don't think cn\ironmental crimes have disappeared," Mr. 

Edmondson said of Mr. Pruitt, in an inten·iew. "It is just the filing of cases 

alleging environmental crimes that has largely disappeared." 

Residents who live in eastern Oklahoma, where local ponds and streams arc 

still often dogged ·with algae, said they, too, were frustrated. 

Phosphorus levels have declined considerably- a total of about 70 percent 

bet\vecn 1998 and 2015- but the largest reductions took place before Mr. 

Pruitt became attorney general, as waste\Yater treatment plants have been 

upgraded and more poultry farmers have shipped chicken waste for proper 

disposal. Still, the le>"els remain far abon~ the state standard and the decline 

in pollution has been slmver than some hoped. 

"1 want an attorney general- and a head of our E.P.A.- \Vho is not ayerse 

to protecting Oklahoma's most out.:;tanding watenvays," said Ed 

Brocksmith, who is a co-founder of a group called ~iJtQis Rh·cr. 

At the same time that he was retreating from his predecessor's more 

aggressiYe approach, Mr. Pruitt sent a c:eries of ldlcr·s to f.ede.rul regulators 

that in some cases '"·ere drafted by industry lobbyists and then put on his 

state government stationery·, open records obtained by The Nm"· York Ti mcs 

in2.0JA sho·wed. The letters pressed the federal government to back down on 

proposals to tighten controls m·er energy production, such as oil and gas 

wells that can release planet-warming methan('. 

http~·/I\VV>\v.nytimes.cDm/2017!0 1/14/u~/scott-pruitt-trump·epa-pick.html? _r=O[l/24/20 17 6:23:04 PM] 
178 

Scott Pruitt, Trump's E.P.A. Pick, llacked Industry Donors Over Regulators· The New York Times 

Ed Brotksmith near tlw Illinois H..ivt•r, which he rrosse~ se,·eral tlmC' a day. He said he \\"8n!C'd R state attornE'y gem'ral and heCl.d 

oftlw Environnwntal Prot<•etion Agency who was ·'not avt'rsc to proh>ding Oklahoma's most outstanding \Vatenvays." 

Mr. Pruitt separately filed a series oflawsuits against the federal 

government, cha11enging regulations intended to reduce the discharge of 

poisonous mercury from coal-burning povl-'er plants, carbon dioxide blamed 

for climate change and other emissions that federal authorities argued were 

causing unsightly haze in Oklahoma's air. 

In total, Mr. Pruitt filed 14 lawsuits challenging federal environmental 

regulations. In 13 of those cases, the co-parties included companies that had 

contributed money to Mr. Pmitt or to Pruitt-affiliated political campaign 

committees. 

Mr. Pruitt separately has served as a leader of the Republican Attorneys 

~.which since 2013 has cJllkl:ted S4.2 million from fossilfuel related compankl;, including Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries, Murray 

Energy and Southern Company, which in many cases have also supported 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0l/14/us!scott·pruit1·!rump·epa·pick.htm!?~r=O[I!24/2017 6:23:04 PM) 
179 

Scott Pruitt, Trump's E.P.A. P1ck, Backed Industry Donors 0\er Regulators- The New York Times 

the hnvsuits he has filed. 

Given the scale of his regulatory challenges, Mr. Pruitt turned to major 

corporate law firms, ·which typically defend energy companies fighting these 

laws, for help. In some cases, that assistance was offered free. 

Baker Hostetler, the Cleveland-based law firm whose clients have included 

dozens of energy industry players, assigned five of its lmvyers to help 

Oklahoma overturn President Obama's Clean Power Plan, intended to 

combat climate change. The law finn did not charge Oklahoma anything for 

the work, Mr. Pruitt's office confirmed. 

David B. Rivkin .Jr., the lead attorney from Baker Hostetler who lliw.dle.dJhe 

Dli.ll.LQI, said that the ·work was considere-d charitable, similar to when major 

lavv firms give free legal advice to inmates at the Guantcinamo Bay military 

prison. 

Environmentalists scoffed. 

''The industries and companies, through their corporate laV~ryrers, are renting 

the state's seal in order to make it look like their self-interested arguments 

are being made by Scott Pruitt on behalf of a state," said David Donigcr, 

director of the Climate and Clean Air Program at the Natural Resources 

Defense Counsel. "It is a disgrace." 

Even federal judges are skeptical. 

Mr. Pruitt joined with Missouri and several other mostly rural states in one 

federal suit to beat back California's regulations requiring egg farms, 

including those in Oklahoma, that \Vanted to sell in the state to seek more 

humane treatment of hens. In rejecting the suit, the federal judge 

admonished the plaintiffs. 

"The court concludes plaintiffs have not brought this action on behalf of 

their interest in the physical or economic well-being oftheir residents in 

general," Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the United States District Court 

h'.rotc in hrr ?014 opinion, "but rather on behalf of a discrete group of egg 

farmers whose businesses will allegedly be impacted." 

https·l/w>vw.nytimes.com/201710 l/l-l./us./scott-pruitl-trump-cpa-piclc.html? _r=DL 1/2412017 6 23:04 PMj 
180 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Harris. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. Pruitt, as an Attorney General, I know as former Attorney 

General of California that we as attorneys general have several duties which include representing our clients, State agencies, and also 

the discretion and power to initiate lawsuits in our independent capacity as attorneys general. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. PRUITT. Some States provide more latitude than others. 

Senator HARRIS. Does your State? 

Mr. PRUITT. Our State has not provided constitutionally as much 

authority as other States—— 

Senator HARRIS. Have you never exercised your independent capacity as Attorney General to bring a legal action? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, I would have to know more specifics about 

what you are referring to. But in response to your question, it 

does—— 

Senator HARRIS. Have you ever exercised your independent capacity as the Attorney General of your State to initiate a legal action, yes or no? 

Mr. PRUITT. The litigations that we have engaged in largely have 

been in consultation with agencies that—— 

Senator HARRIS. Largely. So you have also exercised your independent capacity as the Attorney General of your State, is that correct or not? 

Mr. PRUITT. I may have, Senator. I don’t know. 

Senator HARRIS. You don’t know if you have or not? You have 

been Attorney General for your State for almost 7 years, is that 

correct? 

Mr. PRUITT. Approaching that, yes. Six years, actually. 

Senator HARRIS. And I have read that you have initiated, and it 

has been mentioned before, 14 lawsuits in your independent capacity as the Attorney General of Oklahoma, and apparently 7 of those 

cases have been resolved, 6 of which you have lost. My question 

is—I hear that you are a lover of baseball. What would your batting average then be? 

Mr. PRUITT. It was generally about .300, which is pretty good for 

a second baseman. 

Senator HARRIS. My calculation is it is .142. 

Moving on, would you agree that as attorneys who have the responsibility for doing the work of justice, and particularly as an Attorney General, that we make decisions based on propriety and impropriety; we make decisions based on what is not only an actual 

conflict but what is an appearance of conflict? Would you agree 

that is important? 

Mr. PRUITT. I believe that is important, Senator. 

Senator HARRIS. OK. And so on this issue of whether or not you 

would be recused if you are nominated and actually voted in as the 

Administrator of the EPA, you have said that you will recuse yourself from the cases your office has been involved with if directed 

to do that. Do you agree that you also have the discretion to recuse 

yourself from those cases? 

Mr. PRUITT. I believe, Senator, the rules of professional conduct, 

in addition to the review that OGE—— 
181 

Senator HARRIS. Do you believe that you have the discretion to 

recuse yourself from the cases that you were involved with as Attorney General? 

Mr. PRUITT. I think it is actually stronger than that, Senator. I 

actually have an obligation in those instances, as directed by ethics 

counsel, and that is the reason I indicated earlier that I will recuse. 

Senator HARRIS. Independent of any direction from ethics counsel, do you agree you have the discretion to recuse yourself from 

those cases? 

Mr. PRUITT. I believe that it is important to maintain—— 

Senator HARRIS. I am asking about whether or not you actually 

have the discretion, the power, to recuse yourself. Do you disagree 

or agree with that? 

Mr. PRUITT. Clearly, there is a discretion to recuse. 

Senator HARRIS. Clearly. 

You are familiar with the Clean Air Act, yes? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am sorry, Senator? 

Senator HARRIS. You are familiar with the Clean Air Act? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am. 

Senator HARRIS. And as you may know, section 209, subdivision 

(b) of the Clean Air Act, recognizes California’s authority to issue 

air pollution standards for new motor vehicles that go above and 

beyond Federal standards. The EPA has historically recognized 

California’s authority to issue new motor vehicle pollution standards that go above and beyond Federal standards. 

In your opening statement you write, ‘‘It is not EPA’s mission to 

be against sectors of industry in general or against particular 

States.’’ Will you commit, then, to upholding that same standard 

and recognizing California’s authority to issue its own new motor 

vehicle air pollution standards? 

Mr. PRUITT. You know, Senator, as you indicated, California was 

actually regulating those standards before the EPA was actually 

created, which is why the California waiver exists under statute. 

Senator HARRIS. Do you agree to uphold that same standard that 

has been held by your previous Administrators? 

Mr. PRUITT. I agree to review that as each Administrator before 

me has. It has been granted at times and denied at times. 

Senator HARRIS. Do you agree to uphold it? Reviewing and upholding are two different points. 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, as you know, Administrators in the past 

have not granted the waiver and in fact have granted the waiver. 

That is a review process that will be conducted if confirmed. 

Senator HARRIS. What is your intention, sir? 

Mr. PRUITT. I don’t know without going through the process to 

determine that, Senator, and one would not want to presume the 

outcome. 

Senator HARRIS. In the 14 cases that have been previously mentioned, in each of those cases regulated companies were also a 

party to your suits; is that correct? 

Mr. PRUITT. In some instances, yes. 

Senator HARRIS. In most of them. Can you name a few instances 

in which you have filed a lawsuit in your independent capacity as 

Attorney General against a corporate entity for violating State or 

Federal pollution laws? 
182 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, I have a list here that has been provided. 

Senator HARRIS. Can you name them, please? 

Mr. PRUITT. Sure. There is a list that has been—— 

Senator HARRIS. Can you name one? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes. The first is the Mahard Egg Farm involving a 

CAFO situation and clean up of a large hen operation that affected 

water quality. Coco Manufacturing—— 

Senator HARRIS. Did you file a lawsuit in that case, sir? 

Mr. PRUITT. I did, Senator. 

Senator HARRIS. OK. And what was the outcome of that case? 

Mr. PRUITT. We received a good outcome against them. 

Senator HARRIS. And the name of that entity was what? 

Mr. PRUITT. Mahard Egg Farm. 

Senator HARRIS. And can you name any other cases where you 

have actually filed a lawsuit against a corporate entity for violating 

Federal pollution laws? 

Mr. PRUITT. In fact, that case was brought in conjunction with 

the EPA. And I want to address something, Senator. Earlier, when 

you say independent capacity, those cases that you referred to, the 

list of cases, were as an extension of the DEQ in the State of Oklahoma, an extension of agencies at the State level that had authority granted to them by this body that we were—— 

Senator HARRIS. And I understand that role, as a former Attorney General, but that is you representing your client. I am asking 

about your independent capacity as the Attorney General of your 

State. 

Let’s move on. 

On the issue of mercury—— 

Senator BARRASSO. I would suggest that the Senator’s time has 

expired. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

I would like to introduce for the record a letter by J.D. Strong, 

who is the Director of the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, who in reference to the submission recently by the Ranking Member makes reference to that former employee who is retired from the State of Oklahoma and is currently serving as Vice 

Chairman of the Oklahoma chapter of the Sierra Club. So the references are from now someone who is no longer a State employee 

but the Vice Chairman of the Oklahoma chapter of the Sierra Club. 

But this letter from Mr. Strong goes to talk about the efforts by 

Attorney General Pruitt, who says, ‘‘For the past 6 years General 

Pruitt has been instrumental in many of our successes and has 

never asked me to compromise regulatory efforts to benefit industry.’’ He says, ‘‘On the contrary. All of our projects and cases that 

involved his office were given staff support at the highest level, and 

more often than not resulted in more stringent environmental protection. He has been a strong ally in defending our ability to continue the great progress that we made in protecting Oklahoma’s 

environment.’’ 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, in response, let me just ask for 

unanimous consent to put in the record, and this is on behalf of 

Senator Whitehouse, rebuttal articles for Mr. Pruitt’s claim on litigation against fossil companies. Some of the topline points from 
183 

these articles are, one, that they are fraud cases first and foremost; 

second, some were brought by his predecessor, Drew Edmondson; 

third point, the case against BP was filed and left dormant at least 

for any publication; and also that Mr. Pruitt fought against the 

participation of State whistleblowers in the litigation, and that was 

a reference to qui tam action. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
184 

WllDUFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION 

John P. Zelbst 

CHAIRMAN 

John D. Groendyke 

VICE CHAIRMAN 

Danny Robbins 

SECRETARY 

Bill Brewster 

MEMBER 

Leigh Gaddis 

MEMBER 

Robert S. Hughes II 

MEMBER 

Ed Abel Bruce Mabrey 

MEMBER MEMBER 

January 15,2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee 

on Environment & Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510·6175 

MARY FALUN, GOVERNOR 

J, 0, STRONG, DIRECTOR 

wildlifedepartmentcom 

P.O. Box 53465 Oklahoma City, OK 73152 PH. (405) 521~3651 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee 

on Environment & Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

RE: Debunking New York Times article, "Scott Pruitt, Trump's E.P .A Pick, Backed Industry 

Donors Over Regulators," January 14,2017 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Calller: 

Rarely do I feel compelled to respond to a newspaper article, particularly one that runs in a 

nationally renowned news outlet like the New York Times. I've learned over 23-years as a State 

environmental regulator to value the media's role in uncovering and exposing the truth, not to 

mention the wisdom found in the quote, "Never pick a fight with anyone who buys ink by the 

barrel." However, the mistruths propagated by the above captioned article undoubtedly caught the 

attention of you, your fellow committee members, and many of your respective constituents just 

days before Attorney General Scott Pruitt's confirmation hearing for EPA Administrator, and thus 

deserve a response from at least one of the regulators that allegedly lost out to industry donors. 

First, it's worth noting that I spoke with the New York Times for nearly fifteen minutes laying out 

the facts from my perspective as Oklahoma's former Secretary of Environment and a plaintiff in the 

state's litigation against the poultry industry, then later as Director of the Oklahoma Water 

Resources Board -the agency responsible for establishing the phosphorus standard referenced in 

the article. One would think such experience deserves significant play in an article of this focus, yet 

more column space was devoted to a retired employee of the Oklahoma Department of 

Environmental Quality who was incorrectly listed as the leader of the agency's Water Quality 

Division and wrongfully given credit for being responsible for "overseeing the poultry-related 

cleanup." The poultry industry and its related cleanup are governed by our Oklahoma Department 

of Agriculture, Food & Forestry. Rather than insinuating that Mr. Derichsweiler retired out of 

frustration with General Pruitt, instead of the fact that he retired after 40 years of service to the 

State, the New York Times should have at least divulged that Derichsweiler currently serves as Vice 

Chair of the Oklahoma Chapter of Sierra Club, an organization that has launched a campaign to 

oppose General Pruitt's confirmation. 

The facts that I shared in my interview with the New York Times paint a completely different picture 

than the article portrays. If! were writing the headline, it would read, "Pruitt Helps Deliver Water 

Quality Improvement in Oklahoma's Scenic Rivers." At the end of the day, that has been Oklahoma's 

goal In the Illinois River watershed for decades, and that is what is happening during General 

Th.e Oklahoma Depanment of W!ldhfe CoruervaUol'l !S the ~tare agenc.\ respru-~s1ble for numll&tn{!. fish and wtf.dilfe The WlldhtC Dcpmmcnl 

r~em;s no gener01l tax uppmpnauons and 1s supported b} hunung tl.rtd fl'!lhtng hi..'ense fee:» and fed Mal e""<~;tse taxes 01~ hwmng and fishmg equJpmcm 
185 

Letter to Senators Barrasso and carper 

January 15, 2017 

Page 2 of2 

Pruitt's term as Attorney General. As I stated to the New York Times, no State Attorney General can 

Force a Federal Judge to rule, or I'm certain Former Attorney General Drew Edmondson would have 

taken such action during his last two years in office. Rather than beating his head against that wall, 

Pruitt helped Oklahoma negotiate a new agreement with the State or Arkansas that prompted not 

just a study or the appropriate phosphorus level necessary to protect our shared scenic rivers, 

which the article dismissed as trivial, but more importantly provided For continued phosphorus 

controls on wastewater and poultry Facilities. For the first time in my career, Oklahoma measured 

decreasing phosphorus levels and water quality improvement in the Illinois River watershed 

beginning in 2012. While many people on both sides of the border deserve credit ror this result, 

General Pruitt definitely was a key player. This mere "study" ultimately led to a recent agreement 

between the states of Arkansas and Oklahoma wherein Arkansas committed to meet a more 

stringent phosphorus standard -another shocking development for two states that have quarreled 

For decades and quite the opposite result one would expect from an Attorney General that is being -.... 

unfairly maligned as a shill for industry. ~v 

Rather than spend several more pages contesting the inaccuracies found in the New York Times vr 

article, I will leave you with this overarching truth. As a fifth generation Oklahoman and someone • • / 

that has devoted my career to natural resource protection, I take great pride In Sll.e progress that ~ 

has been made in improving Oklahoma's land, air, water and wildlife resources.!fPr the past six I 

years, General Pruitt has been instrumental in many or our successes and has~ asked me to 

compromise regulatory efforts to benefit industry. On the contrary, all or our projects and cases that 

involved his office were given starr support at the highest level and, more often than not, resulted in 

more stringent environmental protectionS)'Iease do not confuse Pruitt as being anti-environment 

because of his well justified (and strongly supported by ms:lefforts to counter the EPA's various 

attempts to second-guess or usurp State authority. Rather\!!,e has been a strong ally in defendi~ 

our ability to continue the great progress that we've made in protecting Oklahoma's environm~t 

the state level- progress that is too often impeded by Federal overreach and interference. 

IF I can be of further assistance as you embark on your important task or reviewing Mr. Pruitt's 

qualifications and disposition to serve as EPA Administrator, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

I've always round Mr. Pruitt to be a man or great honesty and integrity, so you should have the 

perfect opportunity in your hearing to gather Facts before making your final decision. IF truth 

prevails, you w!ll find what most or us in Oklahoma know to be true: Scott Pruitt stands For 

responsible, common sense, State-led environmental protection efforts that generate positive 

results. 

~ J.D. Strong 

Director 
186 

THEOKLAHOMA.-"J You'revte'W!flgaoartJclefromTheOkiahomQ!l'Snewsroom.?!intsubscnbershava~toapnomOJme~pan"f!Ceat~. 

Details emerge in deal to end lawsuit by state of Oklahoma 

ag~nst Phillips 66 

"' by Paul Monies • Published: January 13, 2017 S:oo AM CDT 

The state of Oklahoma received 

$2.8 million and an outside law 

finn working on contingency for 

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott 

Pruitt received $942,000 from a 

little-publicized settlement with 

Philips 66 over alleged "doubledipping" into a petroleum storage 

tank cleanup fund. 

The state's portion of the payout 

went to the Petroleum Storage 

Tank Indemnity Fund, and 

Alabama law finn McCallum, 

Methvin & Terrell received its portion of the $3.77 million settlement for its work on the case, 

Pruitt spokesman Lincoln Ferguson said Thursday. 

While the case against ConocoPhillips was filed in district court in Oklahoma County in 2013, 

the settlement agreement doesn't appear in the court docket. The attorney general's office and. 

the McCallum law firm filed to dismiss the case in September ·without mentioning a settlement. 

Pruitt, who typically issues news releases touting legal victories, didn't publicize the settlement 

a'A-<ard or issue a news release. The only public mention of it came in meeting minutes at the 

Related Articles 

Pruitt'sofficereleasescontract 

Pruitt's oonfirmationhearingset for Wednesday 

Transcript; Scott Pruitt 20 16 interview on EPA 

and carbon dioxide re~ulation 

It's a tough time iu Oklahoma, unless you're 

Scott Pruitt 

+showmore 

Related Videos 

Historic water rights 

agreement 

Related Documents 

Water rights agreement B 

Employment Opportunities 
187 

the award went to the outside law firm, only that "the Oklahoma attorney general shall be 

responsible for paying any attorney fees." 

A message with the McCallum law 

firm wasn't returned on Thursday. 

Phillips 66, which was spun out of 

ConocoPhillips in 2012, did not 

admit WTongdoing in the settlement 

agreement. The Houston-based 

company operates refineries and 

markets fuel at more than 7,500 

U.S. service stations. 

Pruitt's lawsuit alleged Phillips 66 

had collected money from the 

indemnity fund even after it used private insurance proceeds for the environmental 

remediation. 

Ferguson said the settlement wasn't required to be filed in district court. The attorney general's 

office contracted with the McCallum law firm because of its expertise on storage tank lawsuits. 

The contract was not subject to bidding since there's no state law requiring that in Oklahoma, 

Fer:~'*n said. 

Pruitt, who was nominated by President-elect Donald Trump last month to head the 

Environmental Protection Agency, has filed several lawsuits over EPA regulations during his 

tenure as attorney general. Environmental groups and some Democrats have accused him of 

working on behalf of the energy industry in lawsuits and in comments on pending federal rules. 

RELATED: Pruitt's office releases contract) 

The Phillips 66 case and others like it have been touted by Pruitt supporters as an example of 

the attorney general also being willing to go after energy companies. Related lawsuits against 

BP and Chenon over indemnity fund pa)mlents were filed by his predecessor in late 2010. 

"Mr. Pruitt demonstrated that he will take on industry when they overstep when he sued oil 

companies such as BP who 'knowingly double-dipped by collecting reimbursements for 

corrective action environmental eost.o;; for sites they poHuted, "' said a fact sheet by America 

Rising Squared, which started the ConfirmPruitt.com website to support his EPA nomination. 

Pruitt's Senate confirmation hearing is scheduled for Wednesday. 

'Double-dipping' allegations 

Allegations of companies double-dipping into the petroleum tank indemnity fund preceded 

Pruitt, who took office in January 2011. His Democratic predecessor, Drew Edmondson, sued 

Chevron and BP over similar allegations in December 2010. Pruitt didn't pursue those cases, 

and the court dismissed them in March 2011. 

RELATED: Pruitt's confirmation hearing set for IJikdnesday ) 

Big Wing Interactive Confidential 

Career Tech 

The Oklahoman Media Company 

See All Ads 
188 

The Legislature created the indemnity fund in 1989 to help storage tank owners meet a federal 

requirement for liability insurance for the cleanup and damages caused hy leaking tanh. 

LaYillllakers commissioned an investigative audit of the fund in 2002 that criticized its 

expenditures on items other than cleanup costs. 

The Phillips 66lawsuit was complicated by the intervention of two whistle blowers, who had 

filed a separate "qui tarn" taxpayer lawsuit in 2004 alleging double dipping into the petroleum 

tank indemnity fund. Qui tam lawsuits allow whistleblowers to recover a portion of the funds 

owed to the government. 

Both Phillips 66 and Oklahoma objected to the whistle blowers getting involved in the state case 

and asked the district judge to dismiss the taxpayers' involvement. District Judge Bryan C. 

Dixon agreed, but the whistle blowers appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. 

The state Supreme Court declined to take up the appeal in March, and the docket doesn't show 

any actions other than record-keeping entries until the case's dismissal in September. 

The Oklahoma Corporation Commission, whose staff administers the petroleum storage tank 

indemnity fund, discussed the settlement in an hourlong executive session in June. The threemember commission then voted to approve the settlement, according to meeting minutes from 

June 21. 

REL'~~: Tr.:mscnpt' Scott Pruitl2016 interview on EPA and carbon dioxide regulation J 

Mike Hunter, first assistant attorney general at the time, signed the Phillips 66 settlement that 

same day on behalf of the attorney general's office. In October, Gov. Mal}' Fallin appointed 

Hunter as Oklahoma secretary of state. Hunter has been mentioned as a possible successor to 

Pruitt if he is confirmed as EPA administrator. 

Outside law firms 

Ferguson, Pruitt's spokesman, said the contract for the McCallum law firm wasn't available 

Thursday. He said contingency attorneys don't fall under the same requirements as the 

contracts for outside attorneys paid with taxpayer funds. 

Pruitt's office also has a contingency~ fee arrangement with California law firms hired to work 

the state's consumer lawsuit against VolkswagenAG. Pruitt filed a lawsuit in June against the 

German auto maker in Oklahoma County District Court, alleging it misled consumers over the 

attributes of its "clean diesel" line of engines. The lawsuit came after Pruitt decided to lea\·e a 

multistate lawsuit pursued hy 44 other states. 

The lawsuit said there were about 3,855 VVV vehicles registered in Oklahoma with "defeat 

dC\ice" sofu....-are to cheat EPA emissions testing. Assisting the state were the Larson O'Brien 

LLP and McCune Wright LLP, two California law firms that pursued similar actions on behalf of 

consumers in other states. 

RELATED: Irs a tough time in Oklahoma, unless you're Scott Pruitt> 

Oklahoma's VW case was moved to federal court in California, although Pruitt's office has 

petitioned to move it back to Oklahoma state court. Ferguson said a hearing on that motion to 

remand is expected some time in March or April. 
189 

VW ... 111 pay almost $20 billion in criminal and civil penalties for its role in the diesel device 

scandal, including S4.3 billion from a criminal plea agreement announced Wednesday by the 

Justice Department. The federal settlements won't affect Oklahoma's consumer lawsuit against 

the automaker, Pruitt's office said. 

Paul Nolette, an assistant professor at Marquette University who has ..... Titten a book about the 

changing role of attorneys general in complex litigation, said it's not the first time Pruitt has 

split from multistate settlements. Pruitt pw-sued his own settlement over allegations of 

mortgage fraud in the wake of the 2008-2009 financial crisis. At that time, he didn't use 

outside attorneys. 

"He went his own way because he was concerned the settlement was being used as a regulatory 

device to punish banks," Nolette said. 

Hiring attorneys on a contingency basis makes sense for both Republican and Democratic 

attomeys general, Nolette said. 

"The beauty of it from a political point of view is that technically it is not taxpayer money," 

Nolette said. ''You can argue that it is taxpayer money if a third of it goes out the door, but that 

money is coming from a corporation. It's not coming from state roffers. That's also been part of 

the motivation on the part of attorneys general to get around cuts to state agencies." 

On r~n~r.1nmentallitigation, Pruitt also has used outside counsel, most notably on the state's 

chai)~"~ to the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 

from power plants. 

The Washington law firm of Baker & Hostetler LP is helping Oklahoma in the legal challenge to 

the plan, which is under a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Attorney David Rivkin, a leader in the conservative legal movement, and others at the firm are 

working on the Clean Power Plan case at no cost to Oklahoma. Rivkin and Pruitt have appeared 

together at several events involving regulatory and environmental policy, including the 2015 

Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Oklahoma City. 

Paul Monies 

Pdu! Monie.~ is an energyll;'porter for The Oklahoman. He has worked at newstJapers in Texa~ and 

Missomi and most recently "'"sa d,tt.J joumali~1 for .. read mmT > 

Subscribe to NewsOK's Business Headlines 

Ema1laddress Subscribe 

Stay np to date Yvith busines_~ neY>-s m Oklahoma and around the country. Delivt'rt'd da1ly ~ \'1ew «ample 

c=. _________ ._.,_o_c_o_m_m_e_n_ts ____________ l 
190 

112412017 TRANSITION: Whistleblowers say Pruitt fought them in oil fraud case~~ Tuesday, January 17, 2017-- www.eenews.net 

THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE ENERGY SECTOR 

TRANSITION 

Whistle blowers say Pruitt fought them in oil fraud case 

Mike Soraghan, E&E News reporter 

Published: Tuesday, January17, 2017 

Scott Pru~t (R}, Oklahoma's attorney genera! and President-elect Donald TNmp's nomnee to he-ad U.S. EPA Photo courtesy of CSPAN. 

Lawyers working for Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt batUed for months against a whistleblower lawsuit 

seeking to claw back money from ConocoPhillips Co. for "double dipping" from a state cleanup fund. 

But in 2013, Pruitt changed his tune. He filed his own suit against the company, alleging the same double 

dipping, and potentially pushing aside the former state employees who had been pressing the case for nine 

years. In September, he quietly J.dl!ut with the company for $3.8 million. 

P8WER 

SHIFT E&E News' ongoing coverage of 

the new adm10istration and the 

d'langes taking place on Capito! 

Hi!L~toWJwthe 

contmuingcoverage. 

Now that President-elect Donald Trump has named Pruitt to run U.S. EPA, 

his allies are touting his involvement in such cases as evidence that he 

will stand up to oil companies. An advocacy group supporting Pruitt's 

nomination noted a similar case in which Pruitt sued BP PLC, seeking to 

counter Pruitt's reputation as an ally of oil and gas companies, 

"Mr. Pruitt demonstrated that he will take on indusby when they overstep," 

the group, America Rising Squared, stated on its website 

ConfirmPruittcom. 

But the attorneys for the former state employees who have been pressing 

the case since 2004 say Pruitt fought ltlem harder than he did the oil 

company. 

"I never saw him do anything to really take on ConocoPhi!lips," said Thomas Millington, one of the lawyers in 

the taxpayers' suit "I did see him actively opposing people who were taking on ConocoPhi!lips." 

ConocoPhi!Hps in 2012 spun off Phillips 66, which is the company that satlled with Pruitt. 

Pruitt filed the similar double--dipping case against BP in 2012 but has left it dormant ever since. Court records 

show BP llasn'tresponded, and nothing has been filed since January 2013. 

And Pruitt, who has issued more ltlan 60 press releases about federal overreach and his suits against federal 

agencies, never issued a news release about the ConocoPhi!lips or BP cases. 

Oouble~dipping allegations 

http:hWww.eenews.net/stories/1060048453 113 
191 

1124/2017 TRANSITION: Whistleblowers say Pruitt fought them in oil fraud case- Tuesday, January 17,2017-- www.eenews.net 

About40 states have established funds to pay for the thousands of leaking underground storage tanks below 

gas stations. Many were installed in the 1950s or earlier. Wlen they corroded, the gasoline and diesel they 

leaked became a serious threat to underground drinking water supplies all over the country. 

Oklahoma's fund gets money from a penny-a--gallon gasoline tax approved by the state Legislature in 1989, 

Several states have alleged that Phillips, BP and other oil majors "double dipped" by getting insurance money 

to dean up the sites, then demanding reimbursement from the state dean up funds. 

In Oklahoma, the fund is administered by the staff ofthe state Corporation Commission. In 2004. two former 

commission attorneys, Rachel Lawrence Morand Charles Vv'rig!lt, filed suit saying that ConocoPhillips had 

unjustly received $3.6 million in reimbursement for tank cleanups, 

Their daim alleged ConocoPhillips was reimbursed for expenses the state fund didn't cover, such as Htigation 

and landscaping. 

The legal term for the type ofsuitis "qui tam." They're more often referred to as "whistleblower," "false claim'' or 

''taxpayer'' suits. If they prove fraud, Oklahoma whistle blowers can get half of any money recovered as a 

reward. 

In 2012, the former state employees added a new daim alleging ConocoPhillips had received insurance 

payments for tank cleanup. then billed the state. They asked for nearly $4 million. 

In April2012, one of Pruitt's assistant attorneys general, Nancy Zerr, filed a motion, representing the 

Corporation Commission, to dismiSS the case. She said the former state employees had missed the statute of 

!imitations and couldn't recover in a whistleblower case since they'd contacted the FBI about it. 

'This a cOon should be dismissed, because the plaintiffs lack the capacity to represent the commission in this 

matter," Zerrwrote. 

The motion was denied. In September 2013, Pruitt filed suit, alleging "a bad~faith. deceptive and fraudulent 

scheme« to drain the cleanup fund. The suit named ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66 and other companies. 

Pruitt's office and Phillips fought efforts by Millington's clients to intervene. And Pruitt and PhiHips jointly sought 

an order keeping documents from the case secret 

Pruitt handed the case to attorney Phillip McCallum of the Birmingham, Ala., law firm McCallum, Methvin & 

Terrell. Pruitt also brought McCallum into the BP case. Wlen the case was settled last year, according to the 

Oklahoman newspaper in Oklahoma City, the McCallum firm got $942,000. 

The whisUeblowers lost before an Oklahoma County jury in February 2016 but are appealing to the Oklahoma 

Supreme Court. 

Phillips 66 spokesman Dennis Nuss declined to comment, saying the company doesn't comment on litigation. 

BP officials did not respond to a request for comment. 

Lincoln Ferguson, Pruitt's spokesman in the attorney general's office, cited the BP double-dipping case when 

asked to provide support for his statement that listed among Pruitt's accomplishments ''holding accountable oil 

and gas companies that were profiting off pollution and clefrauding taxpayers.H On Friday. Ferguson referrecl 

further questions about the cases to the Trump transition team, which did not respond to emails seeking 

comment. 

But the political advocacy group running the "Confirm Pruitt'' campaign responded to questions with a general 

slatementthat Pruitt acted property and diligently~. Jan. 12). 

"Pruitt held these companies accountable and got results, balancing the need for dean air and water against 

the interests of his constituents and the rule of law," said Jeremy Adler, spokesman for America Rising 

Squared. 

America Rising Squared ls a political organization staffed by veterans of past Republican presidential 

campaigns~. Jan. 10).1t is allowed to keep its donors' names secret. 

Its affillated super political action committee has been largely underwritten by hedge fund manager Paul Singer 

and other investors. 

Twitter: @Mlke-Soraghan I Erna~ m9ora9han@eenews.net 

AdVertisement 

htlp:/!www.eenews.nettstorles/1060048453 713 
192 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Sullivan. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Pruitt, it is good to see you again. Thank you for your 

willingness to serve. And to your family, as you know, it is a team 

effort, so I want to thank them as well. 

I appreciated your opening statement, particularly your written 

statement, and I want to emphasize we all want clean air. We all 

want clean water. My State of Alaska has some of the cleanest air, 

cleanest water, pristine environment literally in the world. But 

your emphasis on the ability to do both, to grow an economy, to develop our resources responsibly, and protect the environment I 

think is very, very important, and I appreciate that focus. 

I believe the EPA needs a serious course correction. As Senator 

Ernst talked about, there is a lot of anger, even fear of this Agency 

throughout many parts of the country, and I believe you are the 

right person to provide that course correction and do something 

that is very important, which is regain the trust of the American 

people that I think has been lost in a lot of places in America because of the overreach, because of the lack of focusing on the law. 

So there has been a lot of discussion this morning about cooperative federalism. Can you explain it in a little more detail? Is that 

your term, or is that a term that—did you come up with that, or 

is that something that was actually directed by Congress? 

Mr. PRUITT. Directed by Congress, Senator. 

Senator SULLIVAN. And so in the Clean Air Act and the Clean 

Water Act who was given, what entity in our republican form of 

government was given the primary responsibility over clean air and 

clean water in the United States? 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, as you know, Senator, under the Clean Air Act 

there is something called State implementation plans that the EPA 

and the States review together, but the States have that responsibility of adopting the plan—— 

Senator SULLIVAN. So isn’t it correct actually in the law it 

says—— 

Mr. PRUITT. It is. 

Senator SULLIVAN [continuing]. The primary responsibility under 

the Clean Air Act and Clean Water—and who directed that? 

Mr. PRUITT. Congress. 

Senator SULLIVAN. OK. So when you are talking about cooperative federalism, that is not some Scott Pruitt invented; you are focusing on the intent of the Congress. 

Mr. PRUITT. Probably more so than any statutes that have been 

adopted by Congress historically, the environmental statutes that 

we know, from clean water to clean air to Safe Drinking Water Act, 

many pieces of legislation, Congress has been very explicit and 

very specific in saying that cooperative federalism, the role of the 

States is important, should be respected, and should be emphasized. 

Senator SULLIVAN. So let me show you a chart here. This is the 

Waters of the U.S. in the States and entities that sued to stop that 

rule. Thirty-two. Democrats and Republicans and Independents. Do 

you think this is an example of cooperative federalism? And if not, 

if you are confirmed, what are you going to do to get back to what 
193 

is not a Scott Pruitt idea, it is the direct direction of the Congress 

of the United States? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, when you think about the relationship between the EPA and the States, the States are not mere vessels of 

Federal will; they don’t exist simply to carry out Federal dictates 

from Washington, DC. There are substantive requirements, obligations, authority, jurisdiction granted to the States under our environmental statutes. That needs to be respected. When it is not respected, that is what spawned most of this litigation that has been 

referenced here today. And why does it spawn it? Because it matters. It matters that the States participate in the way that Congress has directed, and they have been unable to do so for a number of years. 

Senator SULLIVAN. So, again, cooperative federalism, you are carrying out the will of Congress when you are focused on that issue. 

Mr. PRUITT. That is exactly right. The expertise, the resources, 

the knowledge, the awareness of how to fix environmental issues 

at the local level is something that is important for the entire country to know. 

Senator SULLIVAN. So I am a former Attorney General myself 

who has sued the EPA, and some of my colleagues on the other 

side of the aisle, Judge Booker’s comments, I think he tried to 

equate a little bit suing the EPA, not caring for Oklahoma’s children. Do you care about Oklahoma’s children? 

Mr. PRUITT. Without question. I have a couple sitting behind me. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Fourteen lawsuits. And again, Senator 

Boozman mentioned this, what has been the primary focus of those 

lawsuits? It is not that you don’t care about the environment, is it? 

Mr. PRUITT. Absolutely not. I care very much about the environment. It is to restore the relationship and ensure the relationship 

that Congress has directed, the role of the States in improving our 

environment. There is an idea in Washington that the States, those 

in Oklahoma or in Alaska or other parts of the country, don’t care 

about the water we drink or the air we breathe. The farmers and 

ranchers, those in industry in the State of Oklahoma, most of them 

are very committed to that. When they have not been we have 

taken enforcement action against them. 

Senator SULLIVAN. And just one final question. A lot of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle spent a lot of time, and I 

think Senator Sanders is up next, vilifying the oil and gas industry, 

somehow bad actors, polluters. According to the American Petroleum Institute, 364,000 Oklahomans work in the oil and gas industry or related service sectors. Are these people bad actors? Are they 

polluters? Can you describe? You talk about the good people in 

your written statement. Who are these people, and are you representing them when you are bringing these kinds of actions? Are 

they evil people? 

Mr. PRUITT. No, Senator. They want to comply with the law. 

They want to know what is expected of them. They care about the 

air they breathe and the water they drink, and they want to make 

sure that the EPA is partnering with State agencies and industry 

to ensure that that outcome occurs. 

Senator SULLIVAN. And aren’t these hundreds of thousands of 

people part of that industry? 
194 

Mr. PRUITT. Absolutely. In fact, 25 percent of our entire State 

budget in Oklahoma is from that industry. This is a State concern. 

And more than that, we have significant regulation over this industry. Our Corporation Commission has oversight over many of these 

issues. So we have regulatory bodies from DEQ to the Corporation 

Commission to others that are involved in making sure that the air 

we breathe and the water we drink is clear in the State of Oklahoma. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Pruitt, for being willing to serve this Administration, for your interest in public service, and your past public service. 

Mr. PRUITT. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. I want to talk to you about some of the constituents in my State and the challenges, the very real challenges 

we face. First, we had millions of people’s lives upended with 

Superstorm Sandy. I mean, millions of people. We had parents who 

lost their children who drowned because of surges of water coming 

through their homes, through the streets. The devastation was literally unparalleled in my State; it was just something we had 

never seen before. And we are going to be looking to you to protect 

these families and protect these communities, because we know 

with global climate change the incidences of super storms and violent weather impacts is changed; it is very, very different. And you 

have already told folks that you do believe that global climate 

change is real; it has been caused by human activity. 

Do you believe also that sea levels are rising? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, I believe that the EPA, addressing this 

issue because of the MATS v. EPA case and the endangerment 

finding has obligations to address the CO2 issue. In doing so, they 

need to follow the processes as set up by Congress. So I think it 

is very important to do both. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. But you have studied this issue of sea levels. You do realize they are rising. And it is one of the reasons why 

these storm surges were so high and devastating communities all 

across New York City. So I need you to be vigilant because lives 

are at stake, and I think you have the purview to do that. Will you 

be vigilant? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, we will obviously address those issues that 

we talked about in your office, and I appreciate your passion on 

this issue. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. One of the other issues that we talked 

about that I think is equally as concerning is issues of mercury 

that have been raised, about asthma rates that have been raised, 

about groundwater polluted. I have looked at your record. Most of 

the lawsuits you filed as Attorney General were related to businesses, specifically what was important for your State in terms of 

employers and businesses. And the few lawsuits you did file about 

human safety were few and far between. 

But this role as head of the EPA, you are going to have a much 

more important role to play, and I want to talk specifically about 
195 

mercury. If you believe that mercury is a threat to public health 

but oppose the remedy of reducing mercury air pollution from 

power plants because it is too costly, what, then, do you think you 

should do, or what should be done to address the mercury pollution? 

Mr. PRUITT. Let me say, Senator, mercury is something—it is a 

hazardous air pollutant under section 112. It is something that the 

EPA has authority to regulate and should regulate. It should do so, 

though, within the framework established by this body, and the Supreme Court said that the EPA did not follow the cost-benefit obligations. It is not that the benefits outweigh the costs; it is just that 

they simply didn’t engage in a proper record-based support for 

their rule. So that goes back to earlier questions with other Senators about the process mattering, being committed to the rule of 

law and the rulemaking authority that Congress has given the 

EPA in making sure that as rules are passed, that they can be 

upheld in court. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. But I need you also to be worried about 

human health. I understand there is a cost, but when you are talking about lives, when you are talking about children who can’t 

breathe—I have been to the emergency room at 2 in the morning 

with a child who can’t breathe; it is a horrible thing. We have had 

children die in New York City because none of their teachers, no 

administrators in the schools knew what to do when a child has an 

asthma attack. It is a huge problem. So I need you to care about 

human health and really believe that the cost, when human health 

is at risk, when people are dying, is far higher than it is the cost 

to that polluter to clean up the air and change their processes. I 

need you to feel it as if your children sitting behind you are the 

ones in the emergency room. I need you to know it. 

Mr. PRUITT. And Senator, I would say to you there are certain 

instances where costs can’t even be considered, as you know. Those 

criteria pollutants under our NAAQS program, cost is not even a 

factor because human health is the focus. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. So let’s talk about that. So you and I 

previewed this in my office. We have a horrible problem in New 

York State with Superfund sites and with groundwater that is polluted. We have PFOA in our water. We have the largest PCB 

Superfund site in the United States in the Hudson River. When 

families who don’t have money fish in the Hudson River, they eat 

those fish, they get ill. It is horrible. The contaminants are real, 

they are pervasive, and they are destroying lives. They are also destroying the economy, because when you have contaminants all 

over the place you can’t sell your house, you can’t put in industries 

that are relying on tourism. It is a huge problem. 

So PFOA is an example of a chemical that needs to be tested. I 

need you to put it No. 1 on your list, to test it, and if it is the carcinogen that many scientists have said it is, it needs to be banned. 

Mr. PRUITT. The TSCA authority that has been granted by this 

body, you and I talked about that in your office, PFOA needs to be 

addressed quickly, even under the Safe Drinking Water Act as 

well. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Will you commit to doing that work? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, Senator. 
196 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request. I would like to submit for the record—and this is sort of in 

response to a question raised by Senator Harris. Mr. Pruitt, in his 

response to her question on whether he had ever filed a lawsuit 

against a corporate entity for violating State or Federal pollution, 

apparently was not correct. I want to just submit for the record a 

list of cases that have been active under Mr. Pruitt’s leadership. It 

notes which ones were started by his predecessor, and it shows 

that the case in which he mentioned in his exchange with Senator 

Harris; I think it was the egg case. That case actually was initiated 

not by Mr. Pruitt, but by his predecessor. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information was not received at time of print.] 

Senator BARRASSO. And I would like to submit to the record, as 

well, having heard that some of my Democratic colleagues have expressed their concerns that Attorney General Pruitt is not open to 

the finding of science, especially as it relates to climate change, 

this is not so. I would like to call the Committee’s attention to a 

letter by the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. 

The letter is signed by 130 scientists, economists, legal scholars, 

policy experts, religious leaders, and over 230 other citizens urging 

Attorney General Pruitt’s confirmation. The group includes David 

Legates, who is a Ph.D. in climatology, Professor of Climatology 

and Geography at the University of Delaware. The author praises 

Pruitt, stating, ‘‘Mr. Pruitt has also demonstrated understanding of 

and open-mindedness toward scientific insights crucial to the formulation and implementation of environmental regulation.’’ 

The organization’s founder and national spokesman, Calvin 

Beisner, is quoted in the press release announcing the letter as 

saying the following, ‘‘Some environmental activists are determined 

to prevent Mr. Pruitt’s confirmation, painting him as a science denier or a climate change denier.’’ Mr. Beisner continues, ‘‘He is neither. He is a solid, common sense Attorney General who will bring 

much needed reform to the EPA.’’ 

Without objection, the letter will be submitted for the record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
197 

CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER- CORNWALL ALLIANCE 

RELEASE REBUTTING 

Some of my Democratic colleagues have expressed their concerns 

that Attorney General Pruitt is not open to the finding of science 

especially as it relates to climate change. 

This is not so. 

I would like to call this committee's attention to a letter by The 

Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. 

This letter was signed by 130 " ... scientists, economists, legal 

scholars, policy experts, and religious leaders, and over 230 other 

citizens" urging Attorney General Pruitt's confirmation. 

This group includes David Legates, Ph.D. (Climatology), 

who is a Professor of Climatology and Geography at the University 

of Delaware. 

The authors praise Pruitt and stated that: 

"Mr. Pruitt has also demonstrated understanding of and openmindedness toward scientific insights crucial to the 

formulation and implementation of environmental regulation. " 

(continued on next page) 
198 

The organization's Founder and National Spokesman, Dr. E. Calvin 

Beisner is quoted in the press release announcing the letter as saying 

the following: 

'Some environmental activist are determined to 

prevent Mr. Pruitt's confirmation, painting him 

as a "science denier" or a "climate-change 

denier",' 

Mr. Beisner continues: 

'He is neither. He's a solid, common-sense 

attorney general who will bring much-needed 

reform to the EPA. ' 

I ask unanimous consent to include the letter and the press release 

into the record. 
199 

January 17, 2017 

Honorable Members of the Envil·onmcnt and Public Works Committee, United States Senate: 

We write to you as evangelical and mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Jewish scientists, 

economists, legal scholars, policy experts, and religious leaders in support ofthe nomination of 

Oklahoma Attomey General Scott Pruitt to the office of Administrator of the federal Environmental 

Prolection Agency. 

The EPA has the crucial task of writing and enforcing regulations that apply statutes pas.o;ed by Congress 

and signed by the President to protect the life and health of Americans. Its work necessarily integrates 

science, economics, law, politics, and ethics, all of which are rooted in religious worldvicws. A good 

Administrator must demonstrate expertise in at least some of these, and mature understanding of and 

receptivity to the insights of all. Scott Pruitt does. 

As Oklahoma Attorney General, Mr. Pruitt has demonstrated his legal expertise in successful litigation 

to require corporations-including the energy corporations so prominent in his state's economy-to 

abide by environmental laws and regulations. He has publicly expressed his conviction that the EPA's 

role is not to create law through regulations that exceed the scope of enabling legislation but to 

implement the intent of that legislation and nothing more. That is, he recognizes that environmental 

policy should be determined by the people's elected representatives, not by unelected, unaccountable 

member; of the federal bureaucracy. He has also publicly opposed the abuse of the court system by use 

of"sue-and-settle" to reach sweetheart deals between the EPA and environmental advocacy groups. 

These are some of the obvious ways in which his legal expertise qualifies him for Administrator. 

Mr. Pruitt has also demonstrated ltnderstanding of and open-mit\dedncss toward scientific insights 

crucial to the formulation and implem!'ntation of environmental regulation. He is prepared to hear all 

sides in debates over the risks and benefits of various activities that come under the purview of the EPA. 

Finally, as a committed evangelical Christian, Mt·. Pruitt has an unbending commitment to human life 

and health, especially to the protection of the most vulnernble in society. We are pleased to note that a 

large group of religious leaders, including presidents of some of America's I!U'gest and most prestigious 

theological seminaries, has also written to you in his support fot• this reason, and we add our voices to 

theirs. 

Some radical environmenllllists and religious activists oppose Mr. Pruitt because he does not embrace 

their exaggerated feat~ of human-induced global warming-fears that go well beyond the empirical 

evidence crucial to genuine science--or their antipathy to the development of the abundant, reliable, 

affordable energy indispensable to lifting and keeping whole societies out of poverty and the disease and 

premature death that invariably accompany it. We urge you therefore to continn Mr. Pruitt's 

nomination, and we commit ourselves to supporting him in the confirmation process. We welcome you 

to ca!l on us to assist in any way we can. 

Sincerely, 

I. Raymond P. Adams, M.Div. (Pastern! Theology), D.D 

(Honomy), member, Grace Community Church of Sun 

Valley, Arcadia, CA 

2. Gary L. Anderson, MA (History), Colonel, USAF 

(retired), Avintion and Civil Engineering. Fruita, CO 

3. William L. Anderson, Ph.D. (Economics), Professor of 

Economico, Frostburg State University, Frostburg, MD 

4. William D. Balgord, Ph.D. (Geochemistry), President, 

Environmental & Resources Technology, Inc., 

Middleton, WI 

5. Tim Boll, Ph.D. (Climatology), Professor, Univers~y of 

Winnlpcg, and Adjunct rrofessor, University of 

Manitoba (retired) 
200 

6. Paolllarbcr, ll.S. (Civil Engineering); President oftl~e 

B'onrd, Barber Brothers Contracting Co. LLC, Baton 

Rouge, LA 

7. Charles G. Uattig, M.S. (Electrical Engineering), M.D., 

Heartland Institute policy expert on envirmnncnt; 

Virginia Scientists and Engineers for Energy and 

Environment (V A·SE.EE), Charlottesville; VII 

&. David E. Baugh, M.S. (Chemical Engineering), 

Prof<:Ssional Engineer (retired), Dircetor, Centro! 

Oklahoma Chapter, Reasonable Faith, Oklahoma City, 

OK 

9. Timothy Beard, Th.M. (Theology), retired 

mi«lonat·yfpas!OI', Cnlvnry llible Church, Toppenish, 

WA 

10. £.Calvin Beisner, l'h.D. (History), Founder attd 

National Spokesnmn, The Cornwall Alliance for the 

Stewardship of Ct'elltion 

11. Victorio Blodgett, New Englnnd Regional Director, 

Aglow International, Southbridge, MA 

12. Carl w: Bogue, Jr., Th.D. \!neology), Pastor Emeritus, 

Faith Presbytcrilll1 Churcl1, Akro1~ OH 

13. James A. ))orland, (Th.D.), Theology, Prokssor of 

Theology, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VII 

14, David 1. Bufa!o, B.S. (Civil Engineering), Licensed 

ProfossiQnal Engineer, Denver, CO 

15. 1-1. Sterling Durnell, Ph.D. (Environmental Ethics), 

Rescrudt Fellow, The Heartland Institute, Row!et~ TX 

16. Danny J. Burrows, Lt. Col. (Ret.), USAF, Big Oaks 

Ranch, Kilgore l'X 

11. Roger L. Burtner, Ph.D. (Geology), fom1cr National 

Science Foundation Fellow; fotmer Adjunct Professor, 

Case W<:Stcrn Reserve University; Principal, Remote 

Scn!'ing Exploration, FuJterton CA 

18. Ronald S. Carson, Ph.D. (Nuclear Engineering), 

A ffiliatc Assistant Professor. University of Washington; 

retired 'fccbnlcal Fellow, T11e Boeing Company; 

Adjunct Professor, Sca!tle Pacific University; Renton, 

WA 

19. Kenneth Chilton, Ph.D. (Economics), retired Associate 

Professor of Management nnd Direc.tor of !he !nstiUIIe 

fur Study ofEconomics and the Environment, 

Lindenwood University, St. Louis, MO 

20. Rev. Charles Clough, M.S. {Atmospheric Physics); 

retired chief, U.S. llrmy lltmospheric EffecLI Team, 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD; retired Lt. Col., U.S. 

Air l'orcc Reserve Weather Officer; Presiderlt, Biblical 

Framework M"mistries; adjunct profi:ssor, Chafer 

Theological Seminary, Albuquerque, NM 

21. MarkCoppcnger, Ph.D.{Philosophy), l'rofessorof 

Christian Apologetics, Smnhcm Baptist T11<:o!ogical 

Seminary, Louisville, KY 

22. Oonakl R. a·owc, P .E., B.S. (Mechanical Engineering), 

Founder&. Preskle11t, The Absaroke Corpol'lllion, 

Plant•tion, FL 

23. Claude C. Culross, Ph.D. (Organic Chemistry), Staff 

awmist (retired), ExxonMobil, Baton Rouge, LA 

24. Donn Dcnrs, B.S. {Engineering), retired GE Company 

Senior El<ceutivc, 'nlc Villagc.'l, FL 

25. Mr. Terry W. Donze, B.S. (Geological Engineering), 

author, Climate Reall5tn: Alarmism Exposed, Wheat 

Ridge, CO 

26. John Droz. M.S. (Physics), Independent Scientist, 

Fmmdcl', Al!ianeo for Wise Ene1'gy Decisions {A WED), 

Mor.chcad City, NC 

27. Trent England, J.D. (Law), David and Ann Brown 

Distinguished Pellow, Oklahoma Council of Public 

Affairs, Oklahoma City, OK 

28. Jam .. E. Enstrom, Ph.D. (Physics), M.P.H. 

(Epidemiology), Research Professor f Researcher 

(retired), UCLA School ofPublic Healtl1; President, 

ScientiflC Integrity Institute, Los Angeles, CA 

29. Gordon Evans, M.S. {Soil Science), Environmental 

Mllllllger, The Toxas A&M University System, College 

Station, TX 

30. Joseph Fnrnh, Founder and CBO, WND.cotn, WND 

Books, and WND F'i!Jns, Washington, DC 

31. i'etcr M. l'clker, Ph.D. (Chemistry), University of 

California, Los Angeles, CA 

32. NeilL. Fmnk, Ph.D. (MetCOiology), furmer Director, 

National Hurricane Center (1974-1987), Chief 

Meteoi'Oiogist, KHOU-TV Houston ( 1987-2008), 

retired, Pulshear, TX 

33. John Freemon, B.S. (Engineering) MIS, retired 

Anglican priest, Hillcrest, KwaZulu Nata~ South lllfica 

34. Kevin D. freeman, CFA, B.S., B.A. (Economics), 

Fmtndcr, NSIC (National Security Investment 

Consultant) Institute, Bartlesville, OK 

35. Martin P.l'rickc, Ph.D. (Nuclear Physics), Senior 

Fellow, American Physical Society, San Diego, Cll 

36. Jim Gnrlow, Ph.D. (Historical TIJ<:ology), Pasl<lr, 

Skyline Church, San Diego; Oversight Pastor, l11e 

Jefferson Gathering, US Capitol Building, Washington, 

DC 

37. Albrecht Glatzlc, Ph.D. (Agriculture), Retired Director 

of Research, INTT AS (lniciativa para Ia lnvestigaci6n y 

Tnlnsferencia de Tecnolngia Agmia Sostenlble), · 

Filadc!fia, Pw·aguay 

38. Alan W. Gomes, Ph.D. (Theology), Profussor of 

Theology, Talbot School of 'rheology, La Mirada, CA 

39. Vicki P. Goodman, B.S. (Engineering), Retired 

Applications Engineer, Prosoott, AZ 

40. Bn~e L. Gordon, Ph.D, (History and Philosophy of 

Science), Associate Profcssor,.History and Philosophy 

of Science,. Houston Baptist University, Senior Fellow~ 

Center fur Science and Cukure, Discovery lnstaute, 

Riehmond, TX 

41. Steve Goreham, M.S. (Electrical Engineering), M.B.A., 

Execullve Director, Climate Science Coalition, New Lenox,IL · 

42. Rev. PaulS. Gould, Ph.D. (Religious Studies), 

missionary, wrlter, Christian Laymonts.Missionary 

Evangelism As.socjntionJ Prosser, WA 

43. Jay Grimstead, D.Min. (Theology), PoundcrfDircctor, 

Coalitioo on Revival; Founder, lnlcmatlonal Council on 

Diblica! Inerrancy, Coordinator, lntomntional Church 

Council i'roject; Murphys, CA 

44. Karen Gushta, Ph.D. (Philosophy ofEdll(:ation), D. 

James Kennedy Ministriei, Fort Lauderdale, FL 

45. Gary Habermas, Ph.D. (Philosophy, History, and 

Religion), Distinguished Rcseareb Professor and Chair, 

Department ofPhilosophy, Liberty Univc .. sity, 

Lynchblu'Jl, vII 
201 

46. P.ugcnc S. Harsh, M.S. (Meteorology), U. Col. USAF 

(Retil~d), Colorado Springs, CO 

41. William Happ<r, Ph.D., Cynos Fogg Brackett Professor 

of Physics, Emeritus, Princeton University~ Princeton, 

NJ 

48, Michael Hart, M.A. (Medieval nnd English History), 

Ph.D. (abd; Medieval ond f:uropcnn History), Professor 

J;:meritus, Nom1an Paterson School oflnternationnl 

Affairs. Carleton University. Ottawa, Canndn 

49. Rev. Ron Hcffield, M.M. (Bible), Pastor, New Life 

Cmmnunhy Church, Ortando, FL 

SO. Thomas D. Hennigan, M.S. (Environmclltal ond Forest 

Biology), A"'ociatc Professor of Organism Biology, 

Truett MeConnell University, Cleveland, GA 

51. Rev lrfon Hughes, M.Div., Co-Pa<!or, Shiloh Oo·thodox 

Presbyterian Church, Raleigh NC 

52. Thomas Icc, Plo.D. (l"hcology), Executive Director, PreTrib Research Center, Dallas/Fort Worth, TX 

5J. Klaus lssler, Ph.D. (Education), Professor of 

Discipleship and Theology, Talbot School ofTheology, 

A iota University, La Mirada, CA 

54. Bo)'cc W. Johnson, Ph.D. (Nuclear Engiocering), retired 

Senior Staff Scientist, Science Appl!c•tlons 

1ntcmatfonal Corporation~ retired Professional Nuc:l'ear 

Engineer, State ofCalifo••nia 

55. Rev. Pcter Jones, Ph.D. (Theology), Director, 

truthXchsnge, Escondido1 CA; Emeritus Profe&~or of 

New Testament, Westminster Theological Seminary,_ 

Rscondido, C/\ 

56. Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, Ph.D. (Ethics), Professor of 

Ethics, Whitefield Theological Seminary, Lakeland, FL 

57. J.C. Keister. Ph.D. (Physics), PhnrmnccuticatResenrch 

Speciollst, JM Company (retired), Lakeville, MN 

58. Hugh Kendrick, Ph.D. (Nuclear Engineering}, 

University ofMichigan; fonner Directo1·, Plans & 

Analysis, Offoce ofNuclear Reactor Re.1earch, U.S. 

Department ofEncrgy; retired VP SAIC (Science 

Applications Jntcmatianal Corpol"aHon)~ Tysons 

Comerf VA 

59. llel"!lllrd Kcpshire, Ph.D. (Fisheries Science), Oregon 

Department ofFish and Wildlife, Oregon State 

University (rctircrl), Corvallis, OR 

60. Edward C. Krug, Ph.D. (Soil Science}, University of 

fllinoi,, Urbana-champaign. retired 

61. Dr. Richard Land, D.Phil. (Theology), President, 

Southern Theological Seminary, Charlotte, NC 

62. Rev. Mrui< J. Larson, Ph.D. (Historical Theology), 

Pastor. Peace Refonncd Church, ORr ncr. lA 

63. Willes K. Loe, President, National Federation of 

Republican Assemblies 

...){ 64. David Legates, P~.D. (Climatology), Professor of 

Climatology and Geography. University of Delaware, 

Newark, DE 

65. David H. Lester, Ph. D. (Chemical Engineering), retired, 

Fox Jslandt WA 

66. David H. Linden, M.Div. (Theology and Bible), 

AssistaiU Pastor, University Presbytel'ian Church, Las 

Cruces, NM (retired) 

67. RichardS. Lindzen, Ph.D. (Applied Mathematics), 

Alfi·ed P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences 

emeritus, MIT, Cambridge, MA 

68. Stephen D. Livesay Ph.D (Ed!iCalioniHistory), 

President, Blj'IU1 College, Dayton TN 

69. Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D. (Atmospheric Science), 

Professor) University ofMis90uri, Colun1bia. MO 

70. James f. MacGillivray, CPP (rctircrl), Registered 

lnvostntcnt Adviser, Albuquotque, NM 

11. Mall Mnckowlak, B.S. (Communication Studie.<), 

EJ(ec11tive Director, Fight For Tomorrow, Austin, TX. 

and Washington, DC 

72. Matthew Mnlkan, Ph.D. (Astrophysics), Professor of 

Physics & Astl"nomy, University of California at Los 

Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA 

73. Marlon Leroy Madden, Ph.D. (Chemisny), Professor of 

Chc1nistry (Retired), Mi!souri Baptist Colk:gc, St 

Louis,~O 

74. JcflToy Mahn, M.S. (Nuclenr Engineering), Sandia 

National Laboratories (Retired), Albuquerque, NM 

75. MArkP. Martin, LCSW-C(Social Work), Clinical 

Soda! Worker, Brook Lane Health Services, 

Hagerstown, MD 

76. Rod D. Martin, J.D., Founder and COO, 1"he Martin 

Organizatioo\ Destin, FL; Distinguished Visiting 

Professor of History and GoYCmmen~ Hannibal 

LaGrange University, Hannibal, MO 

77. The Most Rov. William Mikler (Ph.D., Biblic;ll 

Philosophy), Archbishop, Cnmmunio Christiana, 

Sanford, FL 

78. Tmcy Miller, Ph.D. (Economics), Fall• Church, VA 

79. Craig Vincent Milehell, Ph.D. (Philosophy/Ethics), 

Associate Profbssor of Philosophy, Politics and 

Economies, Criswell College, D!:dJas, TX 

80. Rev. William 0. Moore, Ph.D. (Church History), 

Pastor, Comen;tone Baptist Church, Clinton, SC 

81. R. Mark Musser, M.Div .• Pastor and Missionory, Gmce 

Redeemer BibleC~urcb, Olynlpia, WA 

82. Barry L. Myers, Ph.D. (Computer Science), Associate 

Professor of Con1puter Science and Chair, Mathematics 

and Computer Science Departtnent. Northwest 

Nazarene University, Nampa, 10 

83. Rev. Erik V. Myhrherg, Ph.D. (international Business), 

Tactical Chap.lnin, Quantico, VA 

84. Dave Odell, M.S. (Zoology), NYSCED Region 8 

Wildlife Manager, New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation (roti•·cd), Clyde, NY 

8S. George Paul, Ph.D. (Physics), MBA, Senlor Lecturer in 

Physics, University ofNcw South Wales (retin:d), 

consultant in IntcUectuaJ Property, Sydney, NSW, 

A:.~:5tralia 

86. Franklin Ed Payne, M.D., Associate Professor, Medical 

College of Georgia, Augusta Unlvcrslt~. Augusta, GA 

(retire<n; co-founder, Jou111Bl ofBibli!'lll Elllies in 

Medicine 

87. Philip Pennance, Ph.D. (Chemical Physics), M.SC. 

(Geophysics), Po"fessor of MathematiC., University of 

Puerto Rico, Rio Piedrns, Puerto Rieo 

88. Ricki Pepin. Author, Lecturer, lnstructor, Institute on 

the Constitution, Springfield, OH 

89. Mark Pinkeo1on, MD (Pamily Medicine), Professor of 

Pharmacy Practice, Cedarville University, Cndarville, 

OH 
202 

90, Joseph A. Pipa Jr., Ph.D. (Theology), President and 

Professor of Systematic Theology, Gree~willc 

Presbytcrion Theological Seminary, Greenville, SC 

9!. Everett Piper, Ph.D., President, Oklahoma Wesleyan 

University, Bartlesville, OK 

92. Ronald W. Pritchett, M.S. (MOTM-Mastcr of 

Technology Management), B.S. (Geological 

Engineering), AmeJ·iean Institute of Professional 

Geologists, Lone Tn:c, CO 

93. Jay W. Richlll'tis, Ph.D. (Philosophy), RC5carc11 

ProfC5sor, Catholic University of America, Washington, 

DC 

94. Robert J. Romono, D.Min. (Economic Ethics), Founder, 

Heartisl Ministl'ies; AlA Design-Build Architect, 

Charlotte, NC 

95. Caleb Stewart Rossiter, Ph.D. (Policy AnalysL<), 

Adjunct Professor, American University. Washington~ 

DC 

%. fred P. Rumak B.S. (Geology), P. Gco; CPO; P. Geol; 

Energy Consultant, Calgnry, Alhcrtn, Cnnada 

97. James H. Ru.<t, Ph.D. (Engineering), Professor of 

Nuclear Enghteering (retired), Georgia Tech, Atlanta, 

GA; policy advisor, The HoarHand lnstifute, Chicago, 

IL 

98. Atlthony J. Sadar, M.S. (Environmental Science, Air 

Pollution Control), Certiftcd Consulting Meteorologist, 

Adjunct Associate Professor, Geneva College, Beaver 

Falls, PA 

99. Daryl Sas, Ph.D. (Biology), Professor of Biology, 

Geneva College, Beaver Falls, PA 

IOO.Mark R. Saucy Ph.D. (Theology), l'rofessor of 

SystellUltic Theology, Talbot School of Theology, La 

Mimda,CA 

IOI.Richnrd L. Sauet', M.S. (Environmental Engineering), 

Col., U.S. Air Force Re•erve (ret.), NASA (ret.), 

League City, TX 

102.Herbcrt Schlossberg, Ph.D. (Histot·y), Fellow, Elhics 

and Public Policy Center, Washington, DC 

!OJ. Kelly Shockelford, J.D. (Law), President and CEO, 

First Liberty lnst~utc, Plo11o, TX 

!04.Thomas P. Sheahen, l'h.D; (Physics), retired research 

ocicntist spccl!l!izing in cnco·gy issues, formerly with 

several different natiooallnboi·ntories. 

lOS. David Shormann, Ph.D. (Aqu!ltic Science), President, 

DIVE, LLC, Haleiwa, J·ll 

106. Chris Skates, B.A. (fliology/Chemistry), fomoer powet· 

plant cheoniSl, writer, Adjunct Scholar, Cornwall 

Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, Frankfort, KY 

107.Buddy Smith, M.Div. (Divinity), Senior Viae President, 

American l'nmily Association, TUI>Cio, MS 

108. Willie Soon, Ph.D. (Aerospace Engineering), 

independent scientist, Cambridge, MA 

109.Roy W. Spetteer, Ph.D. (Meteorology), Principal 

Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, 

Universlly of Alabama, Huntsville, AL, and Lead 

Scientist, NASA Aqua AMSR-3 Satellite Remote 

Sensing Program 

IIO.Rev. Larry H. Stallard, M.Div., Retired Pastor, 

Edgemont Pre$byterian Churcl~ Bristol, TN 

lll.Nicholas Stehle, B.A. (Polk leal Science), CEO, The 

Stehle Organizolion; President, Campaign for 

America's Future; Little Rock, AR 

ll2.Frank Stevenson, J.D. (l..aw), retired President, NCF 

Title, Jacksonville, FL 

li3.Rlchard f. Storm, PH, CEM, relircd engineer, Hilton 

Head, SC 

I 14.0wen D. SO'!l<:han, Ph.D. (Theology), l'rofessor, 

M'Kiwestern Ba1>tlst Theological Seminary, Kansas 

City,MO 

115.Rev. Kenneth 0. Talbot, Ph.D., Th.D. (Divinhy), 

President and Prof...,or of Theology and Apologetics, 

Whitefield Theological Seminary and College; Pastor, 

Christ Presbyterian Church (RPCGA), Lakeland, Fl. 

116. Timothy D. Terrell, Ph.D. (Environmental Regulatory 

Economics), Associate Professor, Wofford College, 

Spartaltburg, SC 

lli.David J. Tioeroux, M.S. (Mechanical Engineering), 

M.B.A. (Business Economics), Founder and President, 

Independent Institute, Oakland, CA 

I 1 B.C. Joseph TouhiU, Ph.D. (Environmental Engineering), 

P.E., DEE, P, AIChE, F.ASCE, President, Touhill 

Technology Management, Jamison. PA 

119.Rcv. Reverend Thomas Trouwborst, M.B.A., M.Div., 

Pastor, Calvary Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 

Glenside, PA 

120.Gory Tuck, Ph.D. (Bible Exposition), Professor of 

Biblical Litcratutc, Western Seminary, Los Gatos, CA 

121.L.L. (Don) VelnotJr., President, Midwest Christian 

Outreach, lnc., Wonder Lake, IL 

122.Jeffcry J. Ventrella, J.D., Ph.D. (Law), Senior Counsel, 

Alliance Defending l'recdom, Scottsd•le, AZ 

l2J.James A.. Wan!lss, Ph.D. (Physics), Proressor of 

Physics, Presbyterian College, Clinton, SC 

124.Anthony Watts, American Meteorological Society· 

certified television and radio meteorologist (retired), 

ownerofWattsUpwilhThat.com, Chico, CA 

125.David P~ Wells, Ph.D (Theology), Distinguished 

Research Professor, Gordon-Conwc!l Theological 

Seminary, South HamihOI\ MA 

!26.Scott E. Williams, Ph.D. (Applied Mathematics), 

Monument, Colorado, USA 

l27.Peter W. Wood, Ph.D. (Anthropology), PrC'Sidont, 

National Association ofSclwlars, New York, NY 

128.Thomas H. Wysmuller, B.A., Meteorologist, NASA 

(Rei.); Chair, Water Day 2013, UNESCO !HE Water 

Research Institute, Delft, The Netherlands; Chair, 

Oceanographic Section, 201~ World Congress of 

Ocean, Qingdao, CIJina; NASA TRCS charter member, 

Ogunquit, ME 

129.V. William Zm[f(owski, J1·., AlA, NCARB, JIDA, B.S. 

(Architecture, Land Planning, Urban Design, 

Environmental Design), inte111ational Design 

Consultant, Boulder, CO 

130.Benjamin Zyclter, Ph.D. (Economics), John G. Searle 

Chair, Amco·ican EntCl'pfiso Institute, Washington, DC 

[lnslitulionalaffiliations arc for identification and do not imply institutional endorsement, See additional sig~ (over230 as 

of January 16, 2017) at ~J!1Q.;!J2Q. Contact: Megan Toombs, Mggan@Co!'nwallAJii;uJCe,org.J 
203 

..... ~II For Immediate Release 

Scientists, Economists, Ethicists, other Scholars 

Support EPA Administrator Nominee Scott Pruitt 

Burke, VA, January 16, 20 17-The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation today released an Open 

Letter to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee supporting the nomination of Oklahoma 

Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt's confirmation 

hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, January 18, 2017. 

"Some environmental activists are determined to prevent Mr. Pruitt's confirmation, painting him as a 'science 

denier' or a 'climate-change denier'," said Cornwall Alliance Founder and NatioMI Spokesman Dr. E. Calvin 

Beisner. "He is neither. lie's a solid, common-sense attorney general who will bring much-needed rcfonn to the 

EPA." 

Signed by 130 evangelical, mainline Protestant, Roman catholic, and Jewish scientists, economists, legal 

scholars, policy experts, and religious leaders, and over 230 other citizens to date, the Open Letter says that as 

Oklahoma Attorney General, Mr. Pruitt has demonstrated his legal expertise in successful litigation to require 

corporations-including the energy corporations so prominent in his state's economy-to abide by 

environmental laws and regulations. He has publicly expressed his conviction that the EPA's role is not to 

create law through regulations that exceed the scope of enabling legislation but to implement the intent of that 

legislation. His Christian faith underlies his commitment to protecting human health and life through pollution 

controls firmly based in sound science and cost/benefit analysis. 

The Open Letter counters some radical environmentalists and religious activists who oppose Mr. Pruitt because 

he questions exaggerated fears of human-induced global warming-fears based on global climate computer 

models not validated by the empirical evidence crucial to genuine science-or their antipathy to the 

development ofthe abundant, reliable, affordable energy indispensable to lifting and keeping whole societies 

out of poverty and the disease and premature death that invariably accompany it. 

Signers therefore urge Pruitt's confirmation. 

"Those who signed our Open Letter include climate scientists, physicists, geologists, ecologists, environmental 

and developmental economists, theologians, philosophers, religious leaders, and legal scholars," Beisner says. 

"We think that's important because climate and energy policy must be addressed in light of insights from all 

these fields of expertise. Science is important, but it can only tell us what is, and climate scientists on all sides 

acknowledge myriad major uncertainties about the magnitude and consequences of human influence on global 

climate. It cannot tell us what should be. For that, you need economics and ethics." 

Some of the 130 expert signers include: 

William L. Anderson, Ph.D. (Economics), Professor of 

Economics, Frostburg State University, Frostburg, MD 

James A. Borland, (Th.D.), Theology, Professor of 

Theology, Liberty University, Lynchburg. VA 

Roger L. Burtner, Ph.D. (Geology), former National 

Science Foundation Fellow; former Adjunct Professor, 

Case Western Reserve University; Principal, Remote 

Sensing Exploration, Fullerton CA 

Neif L. Frank, Ph.D. (Meteorology), rormer DireCtor, 

Notional Hurricane Center(l974-1987), Chief 

Meteorologist, KHOU-TV Houston ( 1987-2008) 

Bruce t.. Gordon, Ph.D. (History and Philosophy of 

Science), Associate Professor. History and Philosophy 

ofScienc:e, Houston Baptist University, Senior Fellow, 

Center for Science and Culture, Discovery Institute, 

Richmond, TX 

William Hopper, Ph.D., Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor 

of Physics, Emeritus, Princeton University1 Princeton, 

NJ 

David Legates, Ph.D. (CUmatology), Professor of 

Climatology and Geography, University of Delaware 
204 

RichardS. Lindzen, Ph.D. (Applied Mathematics), 

Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences 

Emeritus, MIT 

Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D. (Atmospheric Scienco), 

Professor, University ofMiss11uri, Columbia, MO 

Matthew Mnlkan, Ph.D. (Astrophysics), Pn:>fhsor of 

Physics & Astronomy, University ofCalifurnia at Los 

Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA 

Craig Vincent Mitchell, Ph.D. {Philosophy/Ethics), 

Associate Prole5<<or ofPhilosopby, Politics and 

Economics, Criswell College, Dallas, TX 

Everen Piper, PILD., President, Oklllhoma Wesleyan 

University, Banlcsville, OK 

Kelly Shackelford, J.D. (Law), President and CEO, 

First Liberty Institute, Plano, TX 

Willie Soon, Ph.D. (Aerospace Engineering), 

Independent scientist, Cambridge, MA 

Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. (Meteorology), Pl'incipal 

Rcscarch Scientist, Earth System Science Centert 

Univorsky of Alabama, Huntsville, AL, and Lead 

Scientis~ NASA Aqua AMSR-3 Satellite Remote 

Sensing Progrnm 

Timothy D. Terrell, Ph.D. (Environmentol Regulatory 

Economics), Associate Professor, Woffot'd College, 

SpartanboJrg, SC 

C. Joseph Touhill, Ph.D. (Environmentall!nginooting), 

P .E., DEE, F. AIChE, P.ASCE, Pt·es!don!, Touhill 

Technology Managemcn~ Jamioon, PA 

James A. Wanliss, Ph.D. (Physics), Professor of 

Physk;s, Prcsbyt<:riM College, Clinton, SC 

Anthony Walls, American Mcloorological Societ~­

cortified television and radio meteorologist (retired), 

OWl.,.. of WattsUpwltllThat.com, Chico, CA 

David P. Wells, Ph.D (Theology), Distinguished 

Research Professor, Gordon-Conwcll Theological 

Seminary, South Hamilton, MA 

The Open Letter and a list of all 130 expet1signers is attached. The letter is online at 

http://comwallalljance.org/{andmark-documcnts/open-le!ter-supporting-scott-pruitt-for-epaadministrator!. 

II#### 

Media contacl: Mogan Toombs, Director ofC01rununications, Mcgan@CornwallAIIiancc,org, 703-569-4653 
205 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Wicker. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking 

Member. I think it has been a good hearing so far. I think we have 

a lot of information that will be reassuring to the American people. 

One thing I do object to, though, is something that has happened 

for years since I have been a member of this Committee, and that 

is somehow to list political contributions and suggest that somehow 

they make an individual suspect or not qualified. My dear friend 

from Rhode Island showed a poster and showed some contributions 

and suggested that based on those contributions from companies 

like Southern Company, for example, who has contributed to my 

campaign, that his appropriateness for the job should be challenged. 

So I am glad that the Chairman had added to the record this article from September 6 from the Wall Street Journal, September 6 

of last year, pointing out the Democratic presidential candidate, 

Hillary Clinton, raised significantly more money than Donald 

Trump from the oil and gas industry. Individuals who worked for 

oil and gas companies donated $149,000 to Mr. Trump’s GOP campaign as of the date of July 30, compared with $525,000 to Mrs. 

Clinton. 

Mr. Chairman, I am glad you put this in the record, and presumably, based on that argument, Hillary Clinton would be suspect 

were she to have been nominated for the position of heading the 

EPA. 

Now, Mr. Attorney General, let’s talk about States as partners. 

And I enjoyed your exchange with Senator Cardin about the Chesapeake Bay program. As I understand, you actually applaud the 

Chesapeake Bay program and particularly the way the EPA 

worked with States as partners, is that correct? And could you enlarge on that? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, I absolutely applaud the effort by the 

States to join together in a six-State coalition to address the quality of the Chesapeake Bay’s water quality. That is what we did in 

Arkansas, Oklahoma and Arkansas did with the scenic Illinois 

River that has already been talked about with Senator Boozman 

and others. So I think the effort that they engaged in was something that other States ought to model, and the EPA came alongside and took that TMDL and is providing assistance to those six 

States with respect to that agreement. 

Senator WICKER. Now, with regard to the Clean Power Plan and 

the Waters of the United States rules, where did those regulations 

go wrong in this respect? 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, with respect to the Clean Power Plan, in the 

cases, the Supreme Court has actually said—it was an unprecedented step that the Supreme Court took. Never in history had the 

Supreme Court issued a stay against a rule like the Clean Power 

Plan, and they did so because of the likelihood of success on the 

merits, in the sense that the Clean Power Plan did not reflect the 

authority of Congress given to the EPA to regulate CO2. As an example, with respect to power generation, there has to be a significant finding that poses risk to public health and welfare. They did 

not do that. They did not go through the proper processes of inside 

the fence and regulations of facilities, power generation facilities. 
206 

So those matters, Senator, are about rule of law. And the same 

is true with the Waters of the United States rule. 

Senator WICKER. And I have not delved into this as an attorney, 

as you have, but I can tell you that the Department of Environmental Quality in my State told me very emphatically that the 

Clean Power Plan would put us out of business because we would 

not have had an alternative to the coal that we use. So I hope we 

can continue to make progress on this issue. 

Let me ask you about wood products. The Federal Government 

buys a lot of lumber, uses a lot of wood in construction, and procures a lot of wood. There are standards certifying that the forests 

are appropriate. One is the American Tree Farm System; another 

is the Sustainable Forestry Initiative. 

EPA seems to like a certification program called the FSC, the 

Forest Stewardship Council. Problem is, with this certification program, it excludes 90 percent of the lumber grown in the United 

States of America. 

We have had a lot of activity on both sides of the aisle in challenging this, and I object also to a so-called interim recommendation made by EPA in this regard. As far as I am concerned it is 

discrimination against domestic wood, and now they have come 

back and told us that this interim recommendation is under review. 

Could you comment about both of these, the idea of an interim 

recommendation being imposed on an entire industry and also give 

us any thoughts you have about using the Forest Stewardship 

Council certification model as opposed to these other perfectly good 

Sustainable Forestry Initiative and American Tree Farm System? 

Senator BARRASSO. And if I could ask you to do it briefly, as the 

Senator’s time has expired. 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, as you and I discussed in our meeting, I am 

very concerned about the latter issue, and making sure that all 

voices, all options are considered is something the EPA Administrator should do, and I would seek to do, if confirmed. 

With respect to the interim step, I think that there is a concern 

that many have offered throughout the last several years, that regulators in Washington, not just the EPA, are seeking to use guidance or other steps to avoid what would be called formal rulemaking; that Congress has obligated those agencies to reform to 

ensure exactly what you just described, that all voices are heard. 

And that is unfortunate when agencies do that, because that is an 

abuse of the process. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Wicker. 

Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize for 

being late, but we were at a hearing with Congressman Price, who 

is the nominee for HHS. Perhaps not a great idea to have important nominating hearings at exactly the same time. So I apologize 

for not being here earlier. 

My office has received a great deal of comments from people in 

the State of Vermont, which takes environmental protection very 

seriously, as well as from all over the country, and the fear is that 
207 

the nomination of Mr. Pruitt is a nomination designed to protect 

the fossil fuel industry and not the environment. 

I would like to ask Mr. Pruitt a question. As I understand it, earlier in this hearing you said that Mr. Trump was wrong in suggesting, in stating over and over again that climate change was a 

‘‘hoax.’’ Is that in fact the case? 

Mr. PRUITT. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. Let me ask you this. As you may know, 

some 97 percent of scientists who have written articles for peer-reviewed journals have concluded that climate change is real, it is 

caused by human activity, and it is already causing devastating 

problems in our country and around the world. Do you believe that 

climate change is caused by the emission, by carbon emissions by 

human activity? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, you weren’t here during my opening statement, but as I indicated in my opening statement, the climate is 

changing and human activity contributes to that in some manner. 

Senator SANDERS. In some manner. 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, sir. 

Senator SANDERS. Ninety-seven percent of the scientists who 

wrote articles in peer-reviewed journals believe that human activity is the fundamental reason we are seeing climate change. You 

disagree with that? 

Mr. PRUITT. I believe the ability to measure with precision the 

degree of human activity’s impact on the climate is subject to more 

debate on whether the climate is changing or the human activity 

contributes to it. 

Senator SANDERS. While you are not certain, the vast majority of 

scientists are telling us that if we do not get our act together and 

transform our energy system away from fossil fuel, there is a real 

question as to the quality of the planet that we are going to be 

leaving our children and our grandchildren. So you are applying for 

a job as Administrator for the EPA to protect our environment. 

Overwhelming majority of scientists say we have got to act boldly, 

and you are telling me that there needs to be more debate on this 

issue and that we should not be acting boldly. 

Mr. PRUITT. No, Senator. As I have indicated, the climate is 

changing and human activity impacts that. 

Senator SANDERS. But you haven’t told me why you think the climate is changing. 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, Senator, the job of the Administrator is to 

carry out the statutes as passed by this body and to—— 

Senator SANDERS. Why is the climate changing? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, in response to the CO2 issue, the EPA Administrator is constrained by statutes—— 

Senator SANDERS. I am asking you a personal opinion. 

Mr. PRUITT. My personal opinion is immaterial—— 

Senator SANDERS. Really? 

Mr. PRUITT [continuing]. To the job of carrying out—— 

Senator SANDERS. You are going to be the head of the agency to 

protect the environment, and your personal feelings about whether 

climate change is caused by human activity and carbon emissions 

are immaterial? 
208 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, I have acknowledged to you that the human 

activity impacts the climate. 

Senator SANDERS. Impacts. 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes. 

Senator SANDERS. Scientific community doesn’t tell us it impacts; 

they say it is the cause of climate change, and we have to transform our energy system. Do you believe we have to transform our 

energy system in order to protect the planet for future generations? 

Mr. PRUITT. I believe the EPA has a very important role at regulating the emissions of CO2. Senator SANDERS. You didn’t answer my question. Do you believe 

we have to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel, to 

do what the scientific community is telling us, in order to make 

sure that this planet is healthy for our children and grandchildren? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, I believe that the Administrator has a very 

important role to perform in regulating CO2. Senator SANDERS. Can you tell me, as I think all of us know, 

Oklahoma has been subjected to a record breaking number of 

earthquakes. Scientists say that Oklahoma is almost certain to 

have more earthquakes with heightened risk of a large quake probable to endure for a decade and that the cause of this is fracking. 

Picking up on Senator Harris’s discussion with you, can you point 

me to any opinion that you wrote, any enforcement actions you 

took against the companies that were injecting waste fracking 

water? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, let me say I am very concerned about the 

connection between activity in Oklahoma and—— 

Senator SANDERS. And therefore you must have taken action, I 

guess. Can you tell me who you fined for doing this, if you are very 

concerned? 

Mr. PRUITT. The Corporation Commission in Oklahoma is vested 

with the jurisdiction, and they have actually acted on that. 

Senator SANDERS. And you have made public statements expressing your deep concern about this. 

Mr. PRUITT. We have worked with, through our—— 

Senator SANDERS. You have made public statements. You are in 

a State which is seeing a record breaking number of earthquakes. 

You are the Attorney General. Obviously, you have stood up and 

said you will do everything you can to stop future earthquakes as 

a result of fracking. 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, I have acknowledged that I am concerned 

about—— 

Senator SANDERS. Acknowledged that you are concerned. Your 

State is having a record number of—well, if that is the kind of Administrator for the EPA, your State is having a record breaking 

number of earthquakes, you acknowledge that you are concerned. 

If that is the kind of EPA Administrator you will be, you are not 

going to get my vote. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Chairman, a UC request. I ask at this point 

in the record that we reprint the Wall Street Journal op-ed piece 

that was written by two outstanding scientists called ‘‘The Myth of 

the Climate Change Ninety-Seven Percent.’’ 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 
209 

[The referenced information follows:] 

Joseph Bast and Roy Spancer: TheMythcllheCiimateChange'97%' ~ WSJ 

THE WALL SrRm JOURNAL. This copy is for your p&r&e~nal, non-cornmerciat use only. To order pntuntation~ady copies for dist~ution to your colleagues, cient& or customers visit 

http:llwYM.djreprirlts.com. 

htlp://wwN.wsj.corWartldes/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 

COMMENTARY 

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' 

What is the origin of the false belief-constantly repeated-that almost all scientists agree 

about global warming? 

By JOSEPH BAST And ROY SPENCER 

May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET 

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College 

of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's 

scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent." 

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who 

tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is 

real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured 

language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climatewarming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities." 

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, 

urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys 

and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research. 

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in 

Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to 

have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 

and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible 

for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly 

dissented. 

Ntp:Hwww.waj.caT18tielesiSB10Xl14~13553136 1/S 
210 

E>'W2016 Joseph Bast and Ray Spenca': The Mylhrllhe ClimaleChenge '97%' ~ WSJ 

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"-

and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, 

Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The 

methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that 

abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the 

papers. 

GETTY /MAGESIIMAGOZOO 

Another widely cited source for the consensus 

view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions 

American Geophysical Union" by Maggie 

Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the 

University of Illinois, and her master's thesis 

adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a 

two-question online survey of selected 

scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman 

claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" 

that global temperatures have risen and that 

humans are a significant contributing factor. 

The survey's questions don't reveal much of 

interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of 

catastrophic global warming nevertheless 

would answer "yes" to both questions. The 

survey was silent on whether the human impact 

is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did 

it include solar scientists, space scientists, 

cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or 

astronomers, who are the scientists most likely 

to be aware of natural causes of climate change. 

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 

79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they 

published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. 

Seventy-nine scientists-of the 3,146 who responded to the survey-does not a 

consensus make. 

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google 

Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings 

were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love 

Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change 

believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 

http:llwww.wsj.com/ar1iclasiSB10C0142~13553136 215 
211 

<Wr.IOIB J.,...., Bastard Ray Spomer: Tho Myth ollhoCIIma!o C-'97%' • WSJ 

'unequivocal' wanning." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change 

might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to 

the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus. 

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed 

abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 

97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is 

responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research 

Letters. 

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for 

example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and 

former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the 

same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers-0.3 percent of allll,944 

abstracts at 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent-had 

been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current 

warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. 

Shaviv and Nils- Axel Marner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, 

protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work. 

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans 

von Starch-most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010-have 

found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the 

reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate 

processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to 

predict future climate change. 

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 

39.5% ofl,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 

2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous. 

Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-which claims to speak 

for more than 2,500 scientists-is probably the most frequently cited source for the 

consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is 

occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.'' Yet 

relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key 

question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in 

the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists 

only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report 

addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. H 

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the 

hllp:i...,_,wsj.can/arlicles/SBI0001~135531J6 
212 

IWI201S -Bast and Roy Spence<: Tl1e Mylhaf ... ClimalaChange '97%'- WSJ 

one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, 

Calif., has by far the most signatures-more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). 

It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 

2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human 

release of ... carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in 

the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating ofthe Earth's atmosphere and 

disruption of the Earth's climate." 

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of 

scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem. 

Mr. Bast is president ofthe Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research 

scientist/or the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for 

the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite. 

4/5 
213 

Senator BARRASSO. I have a little bit of time left in my questioning from the first round. I just wanted to talk about some of 

the concerns I have with overregulation. Do you have the same 

concerns with the overregulation of U.S. manufacturing over the 

last 8 years? I believe we have exported manufacturing jobs overseas, the jobs that go with them in terms of the manufacturing of 

those goods to places like China and India that are going to 

produce those products in a less environmentally friendly way. Do 

you agree with this notion that this approach harms not just the 

environment but also our own U.S. economy? 

Mr. PRUITT. I believe, Senator, that it puts us in an economic disadvantage when we don’t hear all voices in the rulemaking process 

with respect to these issues, absolutely. 

Senator BARRASSO. I would also like to submit for the record an 

op-ed on CNN by Jeb Bush, saying, ‘‘Scott Pruitt is ready to turn 

around the EPA. I cannot think of a person more suited to lead the 

Environmental Protection Agency than Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt. He has acknowledged human impact on the climate and supports a robust discussion about its effects and what 

the Government should and shouldn’t do to address it.’’ 

And then also submitting for the record a report that I did as 

Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear 

Safety of this Committee; this was a couple of years ago, called 

‘‘Red Tape Making Americans Sick.’’ I put this together as a physician where we talk about unemployment, long-term unemployment 

increases the likelihood of hospital visits, illnesses, premature 

deaths in communities due to joblessness; it hurts children’s 

health, hurts family well being, and quote scientists who point that 

the unemployment rate is well established as a risk factor for elevated illness and mortality rates in epidemiological studies performed since the 1980s. Additionally, there is influencing on mental 

disorders, on suicide, alcohol abuse, alcoholism. We also see it with 

spouse abuse, drug abuse. 

So that the regulations that come out of the EPA that do cut into 

employment of hardworking Americans actually contribute to a deterioration of their health. 

I don’t know if you have any comments on that or what you may 

have seen in Oklahoma at times of unemployment. 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, we have seen similar issues in Oklahoma. 

We have prescription drug abuse that occurs at rates that are unprecedented, as other parts of the country, so there is a similar 

concern that we have in Oklahoma. 

Senator BARRASSO. I appreciate your patience, your honesty, your 

forthright presentation this morning. We are going to go to a second round. I now have about 12:45. If it is all right with you, Ranking Member Carper, we will come back in an hour. We will take 

an hour break and come back and resume with a second round of 

questioning at 1:45. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
214 

"" ill 

CNN: Jeb Bush: Scott Pruitt is ready to turn around the EPA 

Jeb Bush, Fonner Florida Governor 

Published: Tuesday, Dec. 20,2016 

When Scott Pruitt end I assembled a Restoring Federalism Task Force last year, he headlined the 

plan: "Putting Washington In Its Place." Those five words sum up exactly what the American people 

were clamoring for in this election: a dramatic shift of power out of a broken Washington end back 

into the hands of the people. 

I cannot think of a person more suited to lead the Environmental Protection Agency than Oklahoma 

Attorney General Scott Pruitt, someone who understands how to rein In an out-of-control bureaucracy 

and ensure that Washington focuses solely on Its core functions. 

Pruitt end I share a common vision for empowering the states and 6miting the intrusion of the federal 

government in every area of our lives. He understands that a government closest to the people is 

best able to serve their interests. 

Our country has been held back over the past eight years because the appropriate balanca between 

federal and state powers has become totally skewed. Individual liberty and our constitutional order 

have been threatened. People's aspirations have been capped by a federal government that 

overextended Its reach, and in no place has this been more apparent than at the EPA. The EPA has 

become a one-agency job killer, putting working people out of a job and increasing costs for 

everyone. 

The far left has tried to distort Pruitt's views in a lame attempt to make him into an anti-science 

boogeyman. The Scott Pruitt I know is far from lt. Unlike liberals who want to shut down any rational 

debate about climate change, Pruitt has acknowledged human impact on the climate and supports a 

robust discussion about Its effects and what the government should and shouldn't do to address it. 

In a 2013 speech, Pruitt demonstrated that he understood the proper role of the EPA, completely 

repudiating Democrats' ludicrous claims about how he would lead the agency: 

"May I say this to you and please hear my heart on this .... It's not good for us to say that the EPA 

doesn't have any rote. Because just think about it, you have a power plant in Arkansas that's burning 

coal irresponsibly or Inconsistent with the statue, and it comes over to Oklahoma and Texas. So there 

is a role for the EPA, it's just that they assert themselves In ways that are above that role." 

At the EPA, Pruitt will balance the importance of protecting our environment - ensuring clean air and 

water and being good stewards of our natural resources- with maximizing the ability of free people 

to innovate and create without interference from the federal government. 
215 

I know Pruitt will be successful because I went through this process firsthand running for governor in 

Florida. Many Democrats claimed that my views were extreme and that I would ruin our beautiful and 

unique habitat What 1hey round was exactly the opposite. Applying conservative principles, we 

stream6ned the bureaucracy, saved the state money and invested In Florida's environment, including 

setting out on a historic effort to restore America's Everglades -something the federal government 

had failed to do. 

This model can be replicated In Washington under an Administrator Scott Pruitt. He Will put long 

overdue Umits on the rule makers and roll back those that are choking economic growth. He wm ensure that we conserve our natural habitallo and resources, while unleashing an energy revolution 

that will brtng millions of jobs to our country. 

There have bean several strong appointments by President-Elect Donald Trump, and Scott Pruitt is 

among the very beat because I know he will pursue meaningfUl reforms that wQI improve people's 

lives. I hope aU senators can put partisanship aside and resoundingly confirm this proven leader. 
216 

Red Tape Making Americans Sick 

A New Report on the Health Impacts of High 

Unemployment 

Studies Show EPA Rules Cost Americans Their jobs and Their 

Health 

Minority Subcommittee Staff Report 

Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety 

Senator John Barrasso, M.D. 

Ranking Member 

March 2012 
217 

EPA Red Tape Increases Unemployment While 

Worsening Public Health 

Key Findings and Recgmmendations: 

• Congressional testimony and scientific research reveals that unemployment from 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations: 

.f Increases tl1c likelihood of hospital visits, illnesses, and premature deaths in 

communities due to joblessness . 

.f Raises healthcare costs, raising questions about the claimed health savings of 

EPA's regulations . 

.f Hurts children's health and family well-being. 

EPA claims of health benefits from current and future Clean Air Act regulations are 

misleading and incomplete. The agency must adequately examine the negative health 

implications of unemployment into their cost-benefit analysis before making health 

benefit claims to the public and Congress. 

• The Full Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the Subcommittee on 

Clean Air and Nuclear Safety should conduct additional hearings to responsibly 

investigate the health implications of higher unemployment as a result of federal 

regulations. 

Executive Summary: 

President Obama's Administration continues to claim that new EPA Clean Air Act regulations 

for ozone, greenhouse gases, electric utilities, domestic oil and gas producers, and manufacturers 

deliver significant economic benefits. Specifically, the agency says that these regulations will 

yield billions of dollars in benefits for the U.S. economy in the form of fewer premature deaths, 

sick days, hospital visits, cases of bronchitis, and heart attacks. 

According to the EPA: 

"The benefits of avoiding early death, preventing heart attacks and asthma attacks, and 

reducing the number of sick days for employees far exceed costs of implementing clean 

air protections. These benefits lead to a more productive workforce, and enable 

consumers and businesses to spend less on health care- all of which help strengthen the 

economy. 

However, the Administration's predictions do not take into account how regulations will increase 

unemployment and therefore negatively impact public health. A broad range of experts over 
218 

decades of research say that unemployment will hurt public health. A study published in 1985 in 

d1e American Journal of Public Health by Margaret W. Linn, PHD, R.ichnrd Sandifer, BS, and 

Shaya Stein, PHD, entitled "Effects of unemployment on mental and nbysical health" , 

concluded: 

"Af/er unemployment, symptoms of samotizotian, depreJJ/on, and anxiety were 

significantly greater in the unemployed than employed. 

"[U}nemplayed men made significantly more visits to their 

physicians, took more medications, and spent more days in bed 

sick than did employed indil>iduals ... unemployment had an 

adverse impact on psychologicoljunclion, with the 

unemployed becoming more anxious, depressed, and 

conccmed with bodily symptoms than those who continued to 

work.'' 

Over the last few decades other studies have been conducted to investigate the detrimental 

effects of high unemployment rates: 

• "The Effects of Unemployment on Mortalitv following Workplace Downsizing and 

Workplace Closure: A Register-based Follow-up Study of Finnish Men and Women 

during Eeon omic Boom und Re!;ession" -American Journal of Epidemiology, 2006 

"Unemployment is strongly associated wiJh mortality an the individual/eve/." 

• "Effects of Unemployment on Health in a Community Survev: Main. Modifying. and 

Mediating Effects~ -Journal of Social Lv.rues, 1988 

"Re.•ultsfmm a community survey in a sample of high-unemployment census tracts ... 

showed significant elevations ofdepression, anxiety, somotizotlan [o chronic condition in 

which persons experience physico/ symptoms, but no physical symptoms can he found}, 

and sellreponed physico/Illness among the currently 1memployed. 

"Unemployment hod hen/th-domagingeffects ... severe enough to be considered clinically 

significanl. " .. 

EPA has faced charges that their wide ranging estimates of public health benefits from their 

regulations show uncertainty and that the regulations actually cost jobs. EPA has not adequately 

responded to these charges. Recent research and testin1ony in Congress continues to bolster the 

argument that unemployment leads to poor public health and both Democrats and Republicans 

agree some jobs will be lost because of EPA's regulations. No matter what the predictions are 

for jobs losses from these regulations, those who lose their jobs will suffer negative health 

effects. Those effects must be counted in nny benefit-cost analysis by EPA. 

2 
219 

Unemployment from EPA Regulations: 

Whether Americans believe a net increase or decrease in jobs wilt occur because otEPA 's 

regulations, the ract is that all sides agree that some jobs will be losL 

In 2010, then Senator Blanche Lincoln wrote n column in the National Journal entitled 

"Regullltlng Small Businesses Out of Business." In it, she states: 

"The significant increase in regulations being handed dawn 

by Washington is having real consequences. A recently 

released Gallup pol/found that compliance with government 

regulations is now the single biggest problem facing small 

business owners. The same report indicated that about one in 

three small companies;,, concerned about going out of 

busine.<s in 2012. Similarly, earlier this year the rate of new 

startup businesses reoched a 25 year low largely due Ia the 

uncertainty created by the governmem 's regulatory agenda. " 

President Obama has stated since his original campaign that jobs would be lost in the coal 

industry if he were elected because of his support for cap and trade policies to address 

greenhouse gases. According to then Presidential Candidate Barrack Obama in a 2008 interview 

he stated regarding the U.S. coal industry that-

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will 

bankrupt them bec(Jllse they're goi11g to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse 

gas that's being emiJted. " 

The actual number of Americans who will lose their jobs as a result ofEPA's rules varies. 

According to the Senate Republican Policy Committee in 2011, an estimated ll.S million 

Americans are projected to lose tbeir jobs as a direct result of several proposed EPA rules: 

Obama Policy Potentiaf lobs lost 

~~I'\\ f!tl!l!f S!unthmh . ···- _l_?!:!~~f)_,~_)Q~ __ j ~ n•.\f;ltrt!llulb£ Uih Rl"J!111ltlan.t ~ 1,400,000 i 

lN~"··~;~;Iil,.·j~~~·~ll~~~~~ . ~·~·~-~0-0-(1(1;-, : - ·- ·---·--·-- 1 - •:! ··' .. ..!..--; 

' 316,000 ! 

·isf;Doi,-·t 

69~ooo· 1 . 6U,O(IflJ 

_s_~J!'-'U 

. Nl'\\ Crml'nl !}iln Brat'~_!!·.~~~--·-~' -·-··· ~~'!~!!!.__; 
220 

EPA Administrator Usa Jackson ond others strongly dispute these ligures and her agency has 

stated that their regulations create jobs in the long run ··these are the so called "green jobs" that 

would result as businesses are created to manufacture and install new green technologies. 

For example, in March of201l the EPA released a presentation on dteir proposed Mercury Air 

Toxics Rule that said: 

"This rule will provide employment for thousands, by supporting 31,000 short-term 

construction jobs and 9,000 long-term utility jobs. " 

Director of the Gem·ge Washington University Regulatory Studies Center Susan Dudley refutes 

this claim in a December 20, 20 II, column in llil!i!l.: 

"Also disingenuou.• 1:rthe EPA's claim that the "nde will prol'ide employment for 

thousands. by supporting 31,000 short-term construction .fobs and 9,000 long-term utility 

jobs.' First, this estimate quantifies only the jobs necessary to comply with the new rules, 

and ignores jobs los/, despite its recognilion that 'the industries that use e/ectricitywi/1 

face higher e/eciricity prices as the result aft he f(}xics rule, reduce output, and demand 

less lal>or .. "' 

It is true that some jobs will be created by EPA's slew of regulations to make and install new 

required pollution control equipment for coal fired power plants, industrial boilers and cement 

plants. 

But as Dudley points out, the Administration ignores the thousands of jobs 

that will be eliminated at the plants and factnries that shut down due to 

higher energy and construction costs of installing that equipment. The end 

resuk is thousands of jobs being crushed to ct-eate a few green jobs, which 

leads to higher unemployment. 

An article in the liberal magazine Think Progress entitled "EPA 

Rcgulntions Will Create New Jobs, Says American Electric Power CEO: 'No Question 

About Tbat"' even stated on November 14, 20 II that there will be some job losses in the energy 

industry as a result of EPA's rules regardless of what jobs will be created by them: 

"Net job creolion is a bit harder to gauge, as there will be jobs los/ in some areas of the 

(energy) indt1st1y in a sh(fr awayfrom coal to natural gas and renewobles. " 

Unemployment's Impact on Public Heath: 

In 20 II. several respected health eJ<perts and scientists testified before the Senate Envil"onment 

and Public Works Committee about the impact of unemployment on a person's health. 

On June 15, 20 II, Dr. Huvev Brenner o£ Johns Hopkins University testified before the 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee: 

4 
221 

"The unemployment rate I.~ well e.•tablished as a risk factor for elevated iiin~s and 

mortality rate., in epidemiological studies pe((ormed since the early 1980s. In addition to 

influences on mental disorder, stlicide and alcohol abu•e and alcoholism, unemployment is 

al.fo an important ri.fk facttlr in cardlflva.fcular disease and overall decreas~ in life 

expectancy. " 

On June 8, 20 II, Margaret Thorning, Chief Economist with the American Council for Capital 

Formation, testified before the joint subcommittees on Clean Air and Children's Health. While 

discussing the negative relationship between job insecurity and worker health, she referenced an 

article in Social Science and Medicine magazine by professors from the University of Michigan 

and the University of California, Los Angeles. The scholarly article, "Perceived job insecurity 

and worker health in the Unjted States.~ presents findings consistent with prior studies, 

demonstrating a correlation between persistent insecurity of employment and poor health: 

"Even after adjusting/or sociodemographic and job characteristics, health prior to 

baseline, neuroticism, hypertension and smoking status, and objective employment 

insecuriry ... perceivedjob insecurity remains a significant predictor ofsubsequent health." 

Adult workers are not the only ones affected by unemployment and widespread job loss. The 

National Center for Health Statistics described how poverty affects children's health: 

"( 'hildren in poor.firmilies were four times as likely to be in fair or poor health as children 

in .families that were not poor.·· 

As Americans continue to deal with the impact of high unemploymen~ such studies have been in 

the forefront or the news since the recession began: 

The Washington Post on July 8, 2011 in an article entitled "The long term impact of 

unemployment'' referenced a June 23,2006 report by Yale researcher Dr. William T. Gallo 

entitled "The Impact of Late-career Job Loss on Myocardial Infarction and Stroke: A I 0-year 

Follow-up Using the Healtl1 and Retirement Survey" . The report stated-

"Results suggest that the true costs of/ate career tmemployment 

exceed financial deprivation, and include substantial health 

consequences. Physicians who treat individuals who lose jobs as 

they near retirement should consider the loss of employment a 

potential risk factor for adwirse vascular health changes." 

The Washington Post went on to say-

"Being laid offha.• serious long-term health effects. [P]eop/e who 

are laid o.ffnear retirement are twice as likely to have a stroke or 

heart attack .. .[Unemployment] increases one's likelihood of 

depression. 
222 

" ... Persistent high unemployment, like the kind we're experiencing, does not just hurt 

people in the here and now. It hurts people decades in the future, even if the economy has 

recovered by then. " 

A March 2010 Atlantic Monlhly story entitled "How a New Jobless Era Will Transform 

America" referenced a report entitled "Job Displacement and Mortlllitv: All Ana!vsis using 

Administrative Data" by researchers Daniel Sullivan of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago 

and Till von Wachter of Columbia University. The report states-

"We use adminiJiralive data on the quarterly employment and eamings of Pennsylvanian 

workers in the 1970s and 1980s matched ro Social Securily Adminis/ratian death records 

caveri11g 1980-2006 to estimate the effecls of job displacement on mortality. We find that 

for high-seniority male workers, mortality rates in the year after displace men/ are 50-

100% higher than would otherwise have been expected The effect on mortality hazards 

declines sharply over time, but even 20 years qfler displacemenl, we eslfmate a 10-15% 

increase in annual death hazards. " 

Atlantic Monthly went on to say-

"A large and long-slanding body ~f rosearch shows that physicctl health tends to 

deteriorate during unemploymel'l/, most likely through a combination of fewer financial 

resources and a higher stress level. The most-recenl research suggests that poor heallh is 

prevalent among the young, a111j endures for a lifotime. Till Von Wachter, an economist at 

Columbia University, and Daniel Sullivan. of the Federal Rese1·ve Bank of Chicago, 

recently looked a/the mortality rates of men who had lost their jobs in Pennsylvania in 

the 1970s and '80 .•. They found that particularly among men in their 40.> or 50s, 

mortality rates rose markedly soon after a layoff BuJ regardless of age, all men were l~ft 

wilh an elevated risk of dying in each year fallowing their episode of unemployment,Jor 

the rest of their lives.'' 

The Huffing/on Posl in a November 5, 2010 artide entitled "Stlldy: Longterm Unemplovment 

Has Disastrous Effects On Health And Longevity" quoted Dr. Elise Gould, director of health 

policy research at the Economic Policy Institute who stated-

"After wage losses, the most direct impact of unemployment is loss of health Insurance 

coverage for those who had it in the first place," she said. "But this is only tip oft he 

iceberg when we think about people's heal/h. It's clear that many Americans are >till 

hurting ami will be hurting.for a very long time." 

The Ht!lfinglon Post wem on to say-

"[R}esearch shows that losing one'sjob can have a 'powerful and negative impact' on 

tire health ofthejoble.•s. leading to feelings of failure, depression, anxiety, notably 

6 
223 

increasing the risks of strokes, heart allacks and catastrophic illnesses, and potentially 

leading 10 premature mortality. 

" .. .[F;]ven the ri.<k or fear of losing one's job was just a.1 strong a p•edictor US/he actual 

job loss on an older per>on 's ove1'all health because of intomal psychological issues. " 

On May 8", 2009, the Nl!w York Times in an article entitled "Unemployment May Be 

Hazardous to Your Health" referenced a study entitled "Job Loss and Health in the U.S. 

Labor Market" by Kate Strully with the University of Albany. The study states-

"Losing a job because of an establishment closure increased the odds of fair or poor 

health by j4%, and among respondents with no preexisting health rondilions, it 

increased the odds of a new likely health condition by 83%. This suggests that/here are 

true health costs to job loss, beyond sicker people being mnre lilrely to lose their jobs." 

The New York Times went on to say-

"Workers who los/ a job through nofaull ofrhelr own ... were twice as like(v to report 

developing a new ailment/Ike high blood pressure, diabetes or heart disease over the 

next year and a half, compared to people who were continuous~v employed. " 

Uncertainty and Omissions in EPA Public Health Analyses: 

EPA's March 20 II report. "The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020", 

claims billions of dollars in benefits due to Clean Air Act regulations. This report has been cited 

at hearings in the full Senate Environment and Public Works Committee as well as the House 

Energy and Commerce Committee by EPA Administrator Lisa ,Jackson and EPA's As•istant 

Administrator of the Offke of Air and Radiation, Gina McCarthy. Administration officials 

regularly tout this report as prooftilat increased EPA regulations would be a boon for public 

health and the economy. 

According to outside experts at National Economic Research Associates (NERA), this EPA 

report is Hawed, misleading and contains major uncertainties. NERA's report entitled 

"Assessment of the Obama AdminlstrntiDn's Cost· Ben eli! Analysis of Clean Air Ad 

Regulations," outlines the specific problems with EPA's analysis: 

"The melhodology behind Jhese numbers is suspect, and the magnitude is greatly 

exaggerated. " 

"Existing regula/ions are unquestionably slowing economic grawth today. Whether the 

environmental ben~f/ls of those regulations mighl be worlh the cost is a policy question, 

hut there is no denying that rhe cost takes the form of lower production of goods and 

services that go into consumption and investment. It 

7 
224 

Diane Katz of the Heritage Foundation raises serious concen1s about the uncertainty behind 

EPA's numbers. According to her March 3, 20llreport entitled ~coming Clean on Regnlatory 

Costs and Bcnefitstshe states: 

"Predicting the fmure riffecrs of regulation can be e.~ceeding/y complex given the array of 

canfounding.factors a/ ploy and thus/he mullilude of assumplians thai must be employed. 

The benefiJ esllmates in the report range from $250 million lo $5.7 trillion- a vast 

difference that indicates vast uncertainty about the EPA's claims. " 

"The research design is only one of myriad flaws underlying the EPA's claims. In fact, 

14 element.v of the study that bear directly an the valuation of regulatory benefit.• are 

unreliable and constitute 'major uncertainties' -i.e., diffirences in ben~fit estimates of 

$100 billion or more, accm·ding to the authors of the report." 

"The three most 'significant' of the maJor uncertainties retaJe directly to the calculntkm 

of lives saved by regulation, which accounts for the largest proportion of economic 

benejil and thus the basi.r of the agency's comenrtan that regulatory benefits dwmf costs. 

Simp~v put, the EPA's claim that the CAAAmendments of 1990will save 230,000 li>e.r 

and generate $2 trillion in econonric benefits In 2020 is rife with 'significant' and 'major 

uncertainties, 'according to the authors of tire report. " 

As demonstrated earlier in this report, studies show that unemployment leads to serious health 

effects for individuals. Both NERA and Katz question the accuracy of the number of lives saved 

in the March report. NERA also specifically questions the claim that increasing regulations have 

a positive economic outcome for businesses and the economy. If in fact these regulations are 

having a negative effect on the economy, then there will be subsequent negative health effects 

fot· the public that must be taken into account by EPA. 

The March 20 II rep01t is not the only instance where EPA has been criticized for not accurately 

representing the benefits ••ersus costs to p11blic health from their regulations. A September 22, 

20 II. letter signed by seven members of Congress, who are also doctors, made this k:ey point in a 

letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson about the EPA's Utility MACT ntle: 

"EPA. as a federal agency, is required to perform a regulatory impact asse.wnent wilh 

cost-benefit.findings of any propa.ed major regulatory action. With respect to the Utility 

MACT rule, EPA claims that, 'significant annual health be~fits will far outweigh any 

costs associated wirh implementation. ' Unfortunately, EPA :S ben~(Tis appear to be based 

on limited quanlilative and qualilalive analysis." 

Tho letter goes on to say: 

"Contrary to irs purpose, the pt•oposed Uti lily MACT rule may actually present pr~found 

challenges to public health." 

8 
225 

The letter points out that the EPA failed to consider the impact on healthcare affmdabi!ity as a 

result of increased electricity costs on hospitals. 

"Hospital administrators have no choice but fa pay .'om"'' .. allen/ian Ia the cost of energy. US. heolthcare 

facilities consunlefour percent oft he total energy 

consumed in the US. spending, on average, $8.5 

billion annuol{v on energy, of/en equaling between 

one and three percent ~fa hospital's operating 

budget. Addilionally, EPA estimates, in the US., 

the health sector is the most energy-intensive 

commercial sector rewlling in more than $600 

million per year in direct health costs and owr $5 billion in indirect costs. Under EPA's 

proposed rules, electricity costs in some regions may increase over 20 percent as soon as 

2016. The surging cost of energy will squeeze tight hospital budgets making access to 

affordable healthcare all the more difficult."- September 22, 201lletter to EPA 

Adminisl!·ator Lisa Jackson fl'Om Rep. Michael Burgess, Rep. Phil Gingrey, Rep. Bill 

Cassidy, Rep. John Fleming, Rep. Paul Broun, Rep. Paul Gosar, and Rep. Larry Bucshon. 

The Minority notes dtat the EPA's report and subsequent claims of health benefits of their rules 

all fail to adequately calculate the· negative health impacts of their regulations. The EPA has not 

adequately responded to the concerns raised about the uncertainty in their numbers. TI1e EPA 

also refuses to acknowledge in their analyses and reports the inevitable increase in healthcare 

costs due to unemployment- billions of dollars in time and resources. This raises questions 

about the true environmental health benefits that are the supposed goal of new costly EPA Clean 

Air Act regulations. 

Experts agree that understanding the impact that job loss and income has on health is vital to 

understanding the lrUe representation of what a regulation's affect on public health will be. 

According to a 1999 report in the publication Risk: Hec/Jh, Safely & Environment entitled 

"Health Transfers: An Application of Health-Health Analysis to Assess Food Safety 

Regulations" by Fred Kuchler, Jackqueline L Teague, Richard A. Williams & Don W. 

Anderson. job loss and income are key factors in understanding health impacts: 

"Ecanamisi.Y take far granted that income influences indil!ldual risk choices and thereby 

influences health. In tallying regulatory cosLr and benefits, trnalysts usually know who 

will hear thf! costs. and analysts can estimale tho cast bearers' income. However, to 

estimate the number offatalities a proposed regulation might enduce, analysts need to 

know how income Joss is likely to affect the health of those who will bear regulatory 

costs." 

The Minority agrees with this assessment. Any detailed rost-benefit analysis conducted by the 

EPA should incorporate the latest and best scientific analysis to understand and quantify the 

negative health effects of unemployment and lost income. It should also factor in the high 

energy costs for healthcat·e providers that result from costly regulations. 
226 

Conclusion: 

[tis undeniable that there is a negative relationship between unemployment and health status. 

Today, many Americans continue to lose their jobs or live in constant fear of becoming 

unemployed. Losing a good paying job is devastating for families across the country wllo are 

struggling to get by. 

It is fiscally and socially irresponsible for the Obama Administration to ignore how their 

regulations impact public health by driving up unemployment. Out of work Americans are 

increasingly likely to .suffer: heart attack and stroke, while other effects can include increased 

mortality, alcoholism. candiovascular disease, or mental ill-health: anxiety. depression, ll!ld 

somatization. Secondary effects extend to family members, including children, who are directly 

and indirectly impacted by job loss. Higher unemployment may result in poorer health across the 

country, leading to a higher mortality rate and an increase in hospital and emergency department 

visits. 

Accondingto New York Times reporter John Broder in a November tt•, 2011, article entitled 

''Policy and Politics Collide us Obama Enters Campaign Mode" a meeting occurred between 

the Amerkan Lung Association and then White House Chief of Staff William Daley over the 

EPA's proposed ozone regulations. 

In that meeting. Daley asked a simple question when confronted with the argument that 

additional Clean Air Act regulations would improve public health. Daley asked, "What are the 

healtn impacts of unemployment?" 

The Minority agrees with fom>er White House Chief of Staff Daley that the EPA must consider 

and address this question as it pushes new regulations. TI1e Full Senate Environment and Public 

Works Committee and the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety should also conduct 

additional hearings on these issues to responsibly investigate the health implications of high 

unemployment. 

The Minority recommends that all health impacts be considered equally and transparently. 

10 
227 

Senator BARRASSO. The Committee is in recess. 

Mr. PRUITT. Thank you, Senator. 

[Recess.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Let us resume the confirmation hearing for 

Scott Pruitt to be EPA Administrator. 

Attorney General Pruitt, let me start by saying sometimes you 

get a chance to sit down over lunch, and you say, I have been answering questions for over 2 and a half hours. I wish I had said 

something differently about something or other. Is there anything 

you would like to clarify? 

Mr. PRUITT. I have just one point of clarification in response to 

Senator Whitehouse’s questions this morning about different environmental enforcement steps we have taken with respect to the 

leaky underground storage and double dipping in our State. I have 

officially initiated three cases there with respect to Valero, BP and 

Conoco. Exxon, and a number of other cases are still in settlement 

discussions. Those cases have not materialized in actual litigation 

just yet. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you for that clarification. 

I have a couple quick questions. In the city of Cheyenne, Wyoming, it was discovered that trichloroethylene, a chemical that has 

been used by the military to degrease the engines of rocket motors, 

was seeping into the city’s drinking water supply. The Army Corps 

of Engineers, which was in charge of a nearby former Atlas nuclear 

missile site, refused to even admit that the site was the cause of 

the pollution. I fought the Corps on this to do testing needing to 

prove what was obvious to everyone who looked at it. The test results showed a large plume coming from the Atlas site directly into 

the city’s wells. The Corps is now addressing the pollution of the 

city’s water supply. It is now protected through a state of the art 

water treatment facility that was installed by the Corps. 

Can you perhaps give me an example from when you served as 

Oklahoma’s State Attorney General where you went after polluters 

and held them accountable in that same way? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, Senator. As I indicated earlier—I think this 

was indicated earlier in this morning’s testimony—I mentioned the 

case with the hen producing, the CAFO. That was something we 

actually initiated. I know there was some question that Senator 

Carper raised in that regard. That was both with respect to Federal and State violations. We actually joined the State of Texas and 

the EPA in that enforcement action. 

I have submitted for the record, as you know, a list of cases 

where we have worked with the Wildlife Commission in Oklahoma, 

the DEQ around CERCLA matters and enforcement of our State 

laws. 

Senator BARRASSO. What was troubling to many of us in the previous Administration was when officials within the Obama administration went to extraordinary lengths to avoid disclosing their official written communications under the Freedom of Information 

Act. This is the law that allows public access to Government 

records. For example, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, at the 

time, used an EPA e-mail account under the name of Richard 

Windsor, Richard Windsor, as opposed to her own e-mail account. 
228 

If confirmed, will you refrain from taking any such action that 

makes it difficult or impossible for the public to access your official 

written communications under the Freedom of Information Act? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As I indicated in my opening 

statement, I really believe that public participation and transparency in rulemaking is very important. I think that extends to 

this matter as well. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

I will reserve the remainder of my time. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

As we discussed before, you are a part, I think, of at least three 

lawsuits, Mr. Pruitt; I think one is pending on the EPA’s efforts to 

reduce mercury emissions from power plants. We know that 50 percent of our Nation’s mercury emissions comes from power plants, 

not nuclear plants, but generally fossil fuel plants, largely coalfired plants. We know there are more fish consumption advisories 

in the U.S. for mercury than I think all other contaminants combined, including in your own State of Oklahoma. 

If you believe that the EPA should not move forward on the Mercury and Air Toxics rule, how do States clean up mercury? What 

do you think are the health impacts of mercury emissions? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, I actually have not stated that I believe the 

EPA should not move forward on regulating mercury or adopting 

rulemaking in that regard. Our challenge was with regard to the 

process that was used in that case and how it was not complicit 

with the statutes as defined by Congress. 

There is not a statement, nor a belief that I have, that mercury 

is something that should not be regulated under section 112 as a 

hazardous air pollutant, a HAP. As you know, that section directly 

deals with health concerns of our citizens. That is the reason why 

there is control technology that is very heightened in that statute, 

maximum achievable control technology that is required. So I believe that mercury should be dealt with and dealt with in a meaningful way by the EPA but subject to the processes this body has 

outlined. 

Senator CARPER. Senator Lamar Alexander and I worked together for a number of years on Clear Skies legislation. The George 

Bush administration had proposed Clear Skies dealing with sulfur 

dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury. Several colleagues of my own, 

including Senator Alexander, worked on legislation similar. One of 

the differences between what we proposed and the Bush administration’s proposal was with respect to reducing the emissions of 

mercury. I do not recall exactly what the Bush proposal called for 

in terms of emissions reductions from power plants and others from 

mercury, but it was not very aggressive. 

I proposed a reduction of 80 percent over a certain number of 

years; Senator Alexander said he thought folks could do better than 

80 percent and he proposed a 90 percent reduction schedule. 

We literally had here at this table witnesses from utilities and 

one witness from a trade association representing technology companies that focused on reducing emissions of harmful substances 

into our air and into our water. Every utility representative said, 

we cannot meet an 80 percent reduction in mercury. The witness 
229 

from the trade association representing the industry which was in 

business just to try to reduce emissions like mercury said, not only 

can the industry meet those reductions over the stipulated period 

of time, they could exceed them. 

As it turns out, they exceeded them. They actually did better 

than 80 percent, actually did better than 90 percent and did it 

more quickly than I think was anticipated. 

Is that instructive to you in any way on this question? Is there 

any lesson there for you or for us from that experience? 

Mr. PRUITT. As I have indicated, Senator, I really believe that it 

is important, and it is a partnership between the EPA and the 

States. I made reference to the phrase earlier of national standards 

and neighborhood solutions. I think that shows the EPA can be involved and should be involved in setting standards and setting objective, science-based standards to improve air quality and protecting the health of our citizens but also to be a meaningful partner with the States in implementing those laws. 

Senator CARPER. Let me just stop you there, please. I like to say 

that in adversity lies opportunity. That is not me. That is Albert 

Einstein. There is economic advantage to be gained from cleaning 

up pollution. We have seen there are companies that worked on 

mercury emissions. They make money doing that and starting that 

technology around the world. Similarly, there has been money 

made from the Diesel Emission Reduction Act, the American technology reducing emissions from old diesel engines. 

Do you ever give any thought to the economic gain, the economic 

advantage that can flow from developing that technology to reduce 

emissions? I actually think sometimes of setting regulations, clear 

regulations. 

I will never forget a conversation I had when we were working 

on our Clear Skies legislation addressing four pollutants, meeting 

with a bunch of utility CEOs, and talking about how to go forward 

on that issue. At the end of the conversation one of the utility 

CEOs, I think a curmudgeon-like older fellow. I do not remember 

where he was from. He said at the end of the day, here is what 

you need to do, Congress and the EPA. You need to tell us what 

the rules are going to be, you need to give us some time and flexibility, and you need to get out of the way. That was what he said. 

Tell us what the rules are going to be, give us some flexibility, and 

get out of the way. 

Do you believe that actually setting standards, whether it happens to be mercury reductions, CAFE standards, fuel efficiency requirements, that we are actually setting those standards, making 

it clear that we actually provide certainty and actually open a door 

for economic production? 

Mr. PRUITT. I do, Senator, actually. 

Senator CARPER. Can you give us an example where you actually 

saw that happen, were helpful in making that happen? 

Mr. PRUITT. In Oklahoma, this is not widely known because we 

are known as an oil and gas State, but in the generation of electricity in our State, 17 percent of our electricity is generated 

through wind. We have had a heavy emphasis on renewables. That 

puts us in the top three in the country. 
230 

Our Corporation Commission—I actually have obligations to appear before the Corporation Commission in the setting of rates. As 

utility companies are looking at modifying their facilities to comply 

with environmental statutes, there is great discussion about how to 

do that more economically and to achieve the air quality objectives 

we have under EPA and State mandates. I have been very involved 

in that process through that part of my office. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you again for being before us. Congratulations on your 

nomination. 

Mr. PRUITT. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator CAPITO. I think, as you can tell from this committee and 

the country is divided on a lot of the issues in and around involving 

what you are endeavoring to headline here at the EPA. I think understanding one another is extremely important. No matter how 

many times I might say the same thing and somebody else on the 

other side might say the same thing, it gives me a greater understanding of where they live and how they think best way to pursue 

environmental issues are. 

In the crowd that just joined us here after lunch are several coal 

miners who traveled all morning, have been waiting in the hall, 

and made some new friends in the audience. I want to thank them 

for coming because those are the faces of the issues that I try to 

address when we are talking about the different facets of the regulatory environment that we see that has been put forth over the 

last several years. This question is for you all. 

In my very first hearing as a United States Senator on this Committee, we had the Assistant Administrator, Janet McCabe. She 

came to testify about the EPA CO2 rules. When I pressed her about 

why in the public meetings on the existing plant rules EPA had not 

bothered to come to West Virginia or for that matter any of the 

other States that most heavily rely on coal for electricity generation, this is what she said: ‘‘We tried to. When we were scheduling 

national level meetings, we wanted to have those in locations 

where people were comfortable coming.’’ 

Mr. Attorney General, I want you to be comfortable coming anywhere in this country to talk about whether it is Rhode Island, 

West Virginia, or Alaska. People need to know you are listening, 

that you care, and that you are understanding the ramifications for 

the decisions that you make. 

So this did not sit very well for me. We had a meeting after that 

in Beckley, West Virginia, which is the birthplace of the Ranking 

Member. We had Bo Copley there, who was a laid-off coal miner. 

He talked about all the hardships of his friends and neighbors. We 

had the county commissioner who talked about the loss of revenue 

to the county and how it was impacting the school systems, the 

real estate values, and the bankruptcies of all the different coal 

companies and people who had been out of work. 

I would implore you to commit today to visit West Virginia, both 

sides of West Virginia, and talk to our coal miners and their families to talk about the job and economic impacts and how we can 
231 

work together with both sides to try to get to the intended goal of 

cleaner air and cleaner water. 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, I really appreciate you sharing that. That 

is the reason I mentioned in my opening statement the importance 

of listening and leading. This process I have been a part of obviously is very new, but I spent time with each of you, many of you, 

in individual meetings. Senator Gillibrand talked about issues important to her around CERCLA. You cited concerns and issues that 

are important to you in West Virginia. I think it is very important, 

if confirmed as Administrator, that I spend time responding, learning, and listening to you and your respective States and trying to 

be helpful with regard to the environmental issues you face. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. That means a lot. 

I would like to get some clarification on a topic has been coming 

up about how many times you, as Attorney General, sued the EPA. 

You began your statement by saying the rule of law is very important to you. Then you talked about several of the cases, and probably most of the cases you brought forward as not challenging the 

regulations so much as the process or whether the rule of law has 

been overstepped and the boundaries of the EPA has been the intent of Congress by legislating to the EPA, has been overstepped. 

The courts have agreed, in some cases, that this is the case. 

Could you kind of restate that position on the different actions? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, as I indicated I think in response to Senator Sullivan, probably more so than most statutes that are passed 

by Congress, this body has recognized the very important and vibrant role the States play in partnership with the EPA in implementing and enforcing our environmental statutes. Many of you 

talked about that in your offices and how your DEQ works with the 

Regional Administrator. 

So when we talk about rule of law, as you deal with mercury, as 

you deal with CO2, as you deal with water issues around WOTUS 

and the definition in those cases, it is important that you do so consistent with the framework that has been established by this body 

and that it is respected. That gives confidence to the people that 

are regulating it. 

When you have an administrative agency of any type that acts 

inconsistent or tries to enlarge its authority, it does not inspire confidence in those that are regulated. You are seeing a matter of 

picking winners and losers and being against certain things as opposed to protecting people. That rule of law is not something that 

is academic in my view. It is not something that is just legal; I 

think it is important to ensuring good outcomes as far as improving 

our air and protecting our waters. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pruitt, when we left off, we were talking about things that, 

to quote the Chairman, ‘‘might place you in a conflict of interest 

but have not been disclosed.’’ We were talking about the dark 

money operation that supports the Republican Attorney Generals 

Association. 

Before we get back into that, let me ask you this as a hypothetical. If you had raised significant amounts of money for the 
232 

Rule of Law Defense Fund from corporations who will be subject 

to EPA’s regulation, before EPA, with matters before EPA, might 

that place you in a conflict of interest? 

Mr. PRUITT. The EPA Ethics Counsel has said—by the way these 

are career individuals as you know, Senator. Justina Fugh is a career person at EPA Ethics. So as they have reviewed these potential conflicts, I have disclosed all entities I have been affiliated 

with. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I understand that, but I am asking you if 

you think it might place you in a conflict of interest, because we 

both understand that the ethics rules that the EPA is enforcing 

predate Citizens United, predate dark money. They have said in 

the letter that they are not even looking at that because they do 

not have the authority to. That does not mean it is not a conflict 

of interest. It means that the regulatory authority on Government 

ethics has not caught up with this post-Citizens United, dark 

money world. 

My question is, you are a lawyer; you know conflicts of interest. 

You have been an Attorney General. Might it be a conflict of interest within your definition of the term if you had raised significant 

amounts of money for this Rule of Law Defense Fund, and they 

will have business before EPA with you? Is that a potential conflict 

of interest? 

Mr. PRUITT. I think if you actually did address those entities to 

the degree that I was never an officer of the super PAC you are 

referred to earlier, the Liberty 2.0. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The question was fund raising. That is the 

question we do not have any answers on, is what you raised. 

Mr. PRUITT. They looked at those entities to determine the nature of my relationship and indicated those would have to be evaluated in the future as certain cases arose. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Right now, the Chairman asked you a 

question which is, are there matters that might place you in a conflict of interest that you have not disclosed. You answered no. 

Might not having raised significant money, let’s say $1 million. 

Let’s say you made a call to Devon Energy and said, I did your letter for you. RAGA needs a lot of money. We have this dark money 

thing where we can launder your identity, clean off it, and the 

money will go into RAGA. I need $1 million out of you. Might that 

not create a conflict of interest for you if that were the facts? 

Mr. PRUITT. Ms. Fugh has indicated in her letter to me—again, 

these are career individuals at EPA Ethics—that if particular matters involving specific parties arise in the future, it will be evaluated at that point. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. How will they know if you are not willing 

to disclose that you raised a hypothetical $1 million from Devon 

Energy? 

Mr. PRUITT. Those aren’t even covered entities under her letter 

at this point. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. That is my point. That may very well create a conflict of interest, mightn’t it? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, I did not serve in an office or capacity at 

that entity in any way. 
233 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. That also is not the question. The question 

is a very simple one. Did you raise money for the Rule of Law Defense Fund, front entities that will appear before EPA as potential 

defendants in subjects of regulation? If so, how much, and what did 

you tell them, and what did you ask? It seems to me that is not 

an unusual or—— 

Mr. PRUITT. The Rule of Law Defense Fund, according to Ms. 

Fugh, would need to be a party in the future for that to be an 

issue. That is what she has indicated in her letter to me. At the 

time—if it should arise in the future, I will seek the counsel of EPA 

Ethics and follow the advice of those career folks to make a decision and recuse if necessary. That is something I commit to doing. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. At this point, what I deduce from your 

statement is that if that set of hypothetical facts were true, if you 

had raised $1 million from a big energy corporation to go through 

the Rule of Law Defense Fund to support your efforts at RAGA, 

that is not something anybody should care about, even if that corporation is before you at EPA and subject to your regulation? 

Mr. PRUITT. I think it is something that if presented in the future, Justina Fugh, myself, and EPA Ethics would evaluate that, 

and I would take the appropriate steps to recuse if they told me 

to do so. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But how would it be presented in the future if you are not willing to present it now? Why does it matter 

in the future and not now? 

Mr. PRUITT. If there is a matter or case that comes before the 

EPA’s authority, that would be something. There is ongoing, as you 

know, Senator, Ms. Fugh indicated this in her letter; there are ongoing obligations that I will have, if confirmed as Administrator, to 

bring those kinds of matters to the attention of EPA Ethics. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. For what it is worth, I think the Senate 

has a role in policing this as well, that the whole purpose of advise 

and consent and the reason there are these Government ethics filings is so we can look at this exact question. The fact they haven’t 

been updated to take into account dark money and all these big political organizations that have been created with dark money 

doesn’t take away our Senate obligation to find out what conflicts 

of interest you will bring to the position of Administrator. It gives 

me very little comfort that you are not willing to answer those 

questions here. 

My time has expired. I will continue in another round. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Whitehouse. 

I would like to introduce for the record an article in the Associated Press in the Seattle Times headlined, ‘‘Ethics Officials Clear 

Trump EPA Nominee.’’ It says, ‘‘The Office of Government Ethics 

on Monday released the personal financial disclosure report for 

Scott Pruitt, currently Oklahoma’s Attorney General. The Ethics 

Office affirmed that Pruitt’s disclosures comply with applicable 

Federal laws and rules.’’ ‘‘His finances,’’ it says, ‘‘are among the 

least complicated of Trump’s Cabinet nominees.’’ 

[The referenced information follows:] 
234 

Ethics officials clear Trump EPA nominee I The Seattle Times Page 1 of6 

PHow Two Boston Graduates 11> 

- & World Politics 

are Disrupting the Auto 

Insurance Industry This smaU team of data scientists has made an algorithm that is turning a 

giant S19 billion industry upsk:ledown 

Ethics officials clear Trump EPA nominee 

f • 'I 

Senate MaJority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky •• left, meets with Environmental Protection Agimey (EPA} Administrator-designate Scott Pruitt. right, on 

Capitol HID in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 6. 2017. (AP Photo/Zach Gibson) 

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-worldfnation-politics/ethics-officials-clear-trump-epa·... 1/16/2017 
235 

Ethics officials clear Trump EPA nominee I The Seattle Times Page 2 of6 

By MICHAEL 131ESECKER 

The~, 

-·-~-----. \ 

Federal ethics officials have cleared President-elect Donald Trump's nnminee lor the 

en Protection Agency to be confirmed by the Senate. 

The Office of Government Ethics on Monday released the personal financial disclosure report for Scott Prultt, cunently 

Oklahoma's attorney general. The ethics office affirmed that Prultt's disclosures comply with applicable federal laws 

and rules. 

No date has set for Pruitt's Senate confirmation hearing, 

His finances are among the least complicated of Trump's Cabinet nominees, a group that includes several billionaires. -.f;Jr Jr In just lour pages, Pruitt disclosed an investment portfollo valued between St,20,000 and $1 miWon, held primarily in 

mutual funds, bonds and a state retirement plan. 

Featured VIdeo 

http://www.seattletimes.comlnation-worldlnation-politics/ethics-<Jfficials-clear·trumiHPil···· 1116/2017 
236 

Ethics officials clear Trump EPA nominee I The Seattle Times Page 3 of6 

Group condemns Trump appointees' comments (1:54) 

Most Read Stories 

Thls season, Seahawl<s have crossed the line from bmsh to just plain wilikabll! I Matt Calkins 

2 Michael Bennett explodes at reporter rollowing Seabawks-Falcons game 

Antl·Trumper John Kaslch to doubters: I'm no lame duck 

4 Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell critici%ed for vote to block prescription drugs from Canada 

5 Is the Seahawks' championship window soli open? I Larry Stone 

Urtlhlited [ljgltal Acce-ss. St for 4 weeks. 

Pruitt, 48, also listed debt of between Ssoo,ooo and $1 million on a mortgage 011 his Oklahoma home. 

Senate Democrats and environmental gfoups have criticized Pruitt for what they term cozy political ties with the oil 

and gas indus!Jy. IJke Trump, Pruitt has also has also been a vocal denier of the sdence showing that the planet is 

waming and that man-made carbon emtsslnns are to blame. 

Pruitt, a Republican. has repeatedly sued the EPA since becoming attorney general in 2011. He joined with other 

Republican attorneys general In opposing the Clean Power Plan, which seeks to limit planet-warming catbon 

emissions from coal· fired power plants. Pruitt also sued over the agency's recent expansion of water bodies regulated 

under the federal Clean Water Act, which has been opposed by industries that would be forced to clean up pofiuted 

wastewater. 

Though Pruitt tall unopposed for a second term in lOU.. campaign finance reports show he raised more than 

$700,000, much ofit from people in the eDergy and utility industries. Among those who gave the maximum 

contn"bution of$s,ooo to Pruitt's campaign was Continental Resources Chairman and CEO Harold Hamm, an 

Oklahoma oU tycoon who has been advising Trump. 

On his disclosure fonns, Pruitt is also listed as chairman of the Rule ofl.aw Defense Fund, a Washington-based tax· 

exempt organization founded in 2014- The group's website describes It as a public po!lcy organlzallon for the study of 

Issues relevant to the nation's Republican attorneys general and to promote "the rule of law, federalism, and freedom 

in a civil society." 

In a letter sent to an EPA ethics official last week, Pruitt said he has resigned from the group effective Dec. 8. 

AO\U!RTISINQ 

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world!nation-politics/ethics-officials-clear-trump-epa-... 1/16/2017 
237 

Ethics officials clear Tnunp EPA nominee I The Seattle Times Page 4 of6 

Pruitt Is also listed on his disclosure lonn as a member of the boards lor The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary In 

Louisville, IC!!ntucky, and The Windows Ministry, a small Oklahoma Oty non-profit organization that describes its 

sole mission as "promoting the gospel o!)esus Chrlst." 

In his letter to the EPA, Pruitt sald.hewoutd also resign from those boards !fhe Is confirmed to lead the agency. 

Charlie Spies, an Oklahoma attorney for two political action committees lied to Pruitt said Monday he is in the process 

of filing the required paperwork with the Federal Election Commission required to dissolve them and distribute any 

remalnlng funds. Oklahoma Strong Is Pruitt's leadership PAC to raise money for like-minded conservative candidates, 

while Liberty 2.0 was set up by Pruitt's supporters to suppott any future bids he might make for public olflce. 

Spies said the political fundraislng entities, which are likely to be criticized by Democrats for raising money from 

corporations and individuals who profit from fossil fuel production, have missions that are "no longer relevant." 

"We don'twant them to be a distraction during the confirmation hearings, • Spies said. 

~------------------~ 

Associated Press wrltex Sean Murphy contribUted from Oklahoma aty. 

Follow Associated Press environmental reporter Michael Biesecker on Twitter at http://twitter.com/mbieseck 

MICHAEL BIESECKER 

Email Newsletter Slgn·up 

Custmn-cun~..ted news highlights. deliv&ed weekday momings. 

Sign up 

By .signing up you an: ~K tQ our Privacy Policy and Terms of 

SMY;ce. 

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/ethics-officials-clear-trump-epa-... 1/1612017 
238 

Ethics officials clear Trump EPA nominee I The Seattle Times Page5of6 

) NextStory 

Some of the famous political acceptance speeches, pre-Straep 

( Previous Story 

AP FACT CHECK: Despite woas Obamacare not In 'death spiral' 

Recommended in 

Trump tweet puts L.L. 

Bean in political crossfire 

Seattle restawant unrest: a Susan Sarandon•s baby 

shutdown, a turnover, a_. grandson fractures skull •.• 

Woman ktlled In v.rong· 

way collision with ••• 

Around tile Web 

10 Classic Baby Gi~ Names That Are 

Ready to Make a Ccmeback (-

-~~ Bom Before 1967 f'l8 In 

For A Big Surprise 

~ (8\lts.com) 

The Invisible Hea~ng Aid That E1111ryone 

, Ia Talking About 

I (Haar.com) 

Cantact 

AboutdleAdvortlM 

-- Today'• Frant Page 

f F ........... 

Homeowners Born Before 1985 f'l8 

____ Getting • Huge Reward. ( ......... , 

A Jaw..Oropplng 18-Monlh 0% APR 

Cradll Card 

1-

Homeowne11 Urged To Claim Their 

S42641n Eo~ 2017. 

(SmorlTipo) 

_, 

l 

http:/ /www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/ethics-officials-clear-trump-epa-... 1/16/20 1 7 
239 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I really do find it ironic and hypocritical that we are in a situation that my friends on the other side of the aisle in this Committee, using their definition of dark money as elected officials, 

have literally raised millions of dollars of so-called dark money. 

I’d like to talk a little bit about some of the over-regulatory burden that the States are facing. Air quality in Arkansas is among 

some of the cleanest in the Nation. Despite the progress that the 

State has made in looking forward, trying to do the right thing, the 

Regional Haze Federal Plan is going to produce a tremendous economic burden on them. 

I think it is a prime example of the haphazard regulatory atmosphere that we have had in the past with little input from the 

States and stakeholders. For years the regulatory uncertainty has 

prevented businesses from hiring new employees and stunting economic growth. In fact information from the National Small Business Association that was just released found that more than half 

of small businesses have held off on hiring because they don’t know 

what the rules are going to be. 

You have mentioned it several times. Can you talk a little bit 

more about the impact that you have seen in regard to regulatory 

uncertainty in the State of Oklahoma and the experiences you have 

had? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, the Visibility Program—we have had similar challenges in Oklahoma. The Regional Haze Program under the 

Clean Air Act, that section of the Clean Air Act is really quite a 

bit different than other provisions of the Clean Air Act. It gives primacy to the States in adopting plans to increase or improve visibility. 

That particular section of the law says by the year 2064 we 

should have natural visibility in some key areas across the country. 

Oklahoma several years ago, actually in 2010 under a different Administration, both Governor and Attorney General submitted a 

State implementation plan that beat that deadline by decades. Despite that the EPA came in and rejected that State implementation 

plan and forced a Federal implementation plan on the State, costing the consumers quite a bit of money. 

One thing I would add that I didn’t talk about earlier is we 

talked about cooperative federalism and the importance of partnership. I have talked about that; you’ve talked about that. Under this 

past Administration the use of Federal implementation plans, if 

you combine President Bush, President Clinton, and President 

George W. Bush, those three Administrations combined issued five 

Federal implementation plans under the Clean Air Act in three Administrations. This Administration has issued 56. So it shows an 

attitude of indifference, an attitude of trying to be dictatorial in 

some respects toward the State’s role or manipulative of the State’s 

role in a way that is, I think, counterproductive for air quality. 

Senator BOOZMAN. When you and fellow Attorney Generals and 

other stakeholders sue the Federal Government, whether it is regional haze or waters of the U.S. or whatever, your goal is not to 

do away with the regulation; your goal is to make it such that the 

EPA follows their regulatory authority, is that correct? 
240 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, Senator. In that example I provided to you 

where the State implementation plan of Oklahoma that was rejected, we actually satisfied the statutory mandate that was under 

the regionalized program. We reached natural visibility a couple of 

decades ahead of schedule. The methodology that was used, the 

EPA simply disagreed with it. So they used their authority to displace the State plan costing consumers in the State hundreds of 

millions of dollars in increased utility costs. 

Senator BOOZMAN. One of the things I think we have also seen 

in the last 8 years is tremendous mission creep on the part of the 

EPA where they have gotten into areas where they don’t have the 

expertise. I think expertise would be the best word in regard to 

coming out with some of the things they have done where they lack 

jurisdiction and haven’t really been in the past. 

Can we count on you to work with the other agencies and take 

their expertise into careful consideration as we come out with the 

rules and regulations? 

Mr. PRUITT. I think interagency cooperation is very, very important. Obviously with rulemaking, that is something that occurs and 

should occur, I think, in a very collaborative way. So yes, Senator, 

I believe it is very important as the EPA conducts its business that 

it works with the Corps and works with other agencies at the Federal level to ensure that it is doing all it can to advance and protect 

water quality and air quality and do so within the framework established by Congress. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Does it feel like it is the ultimate decider 

again when they sometimes do not have the expertise of the other 

agency? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, Senator. I agree. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. PRUITT. Thank you. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 

Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pruitt, are you familiar with this piece of medical equipment? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, an inhaler, it looks like. 

Senator MERKLEY. Yes, an asthma inhaler. Are you familiar with 

how many Americans have asthma? 

Mr. PRUITT. No, Senator, I am not. 

Senator MERKLEY. It’s about 1 out of 10 Americans, including 

over 7 million children. It is a pretty significant health problem 

across the country. I know I have been fortunate not to have asthma, but some folks I know who have it and have asthma attacks 

feel like they are suffocating. Sometimes they go into crisis. People 

go into crisis with asthma. Sometimes they die from it. It is a terrifying condition. 

The EPA, in October 2015, strengthened the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for ground level ozone. They strengthened it 

to 70 ppb, adjusting it from 75 ppb, because they argued that it 

was an attainable standard that would save $3 billion to $6 billion 

and in addition, of course, greatly improve the quality of life by diminishing the amount of asthma attacks and deaths. 
241 

You challenged this. You launched a lawsuit against this standard. Was the basis of your lawsuit cost benefit analysis, that they 

didn’t follow their process? 

Mr. PRUITT. It was not, Senator. As you know, under the NAAQS 

Program, the Whitman decision, cause cannot be considered in a 

criteria pollutant. 

Senator MERKLEY. What was the standard you were challenging? 

Mr. PRUITT. It was a records-based challenge that the need to 

ratchet down from 75 parts per billion to 70 parts per billion. As 

you know, the 75 parts per billion had only been in operation for 

2 years. I think, Senator, it is important from a priority perspective 

or the resource perspective of the EPA when 40 percent of the 

country is in nonattainment for one of those criteria pollutants, 

perhaps there should be focus on how to meet the level already in 

statute or already in rule. 

Senator MERKLEY. So you challenged this based on the attainability standard? I already know that—— 

Mr. PRUITT. The records-based challenge, yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. Yes, the attainability standard. There were 

numerous groups that weighed in and said no, this is totally attainable. I will submit a list for the record of that, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information was not received at time of print.] 

Senator MERKLEY. The key to this is that by implementing that, 

by the time it is implemented, it would save annually 230,000—an 

estimate of course—asthma attacks among children, 160,000 

missed school days, a tremendous number of missed work days, 

630 emergency room visits, and 340 cases of acute bronchitis. But 

it also would save, best estimate, 320 to 660 premature deaths. 

Here is something that profoundly affects the health of folks in 

Oklahoma, folks across the country, folks in my home State of Oregon, something that expert after expert said is fully attainable, 

and you challenged it not on a process issue, that is not on whether 

or not there was a cost-benefit analysis because as you rightly 

pointed out, cost is not allowed to be a factor, but whether it was 

attainable. Why fight so hard on the side of the oil industry rather 

than fighting on the side of the health of the people of Oklahoma? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, let me say to you with respect to the 

NAAQS Program, when you look at the nonattainment we have in 

this country, it is presently around 40 percent, I think increasing 

the nonattainment percentage as opposed to focusing resources to 

get nonattainment into attainment is a very important role of the 

EPA. We should be taking those marginal and moderate areas on 

our map that are in nonattainment and work with local officials, 

those counties, through monitoring and assistance to help move 

from nonattainment to attainment. That is a very important goal 

of the EPA in each of these criteria. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. You have made your point clear. 

I just simply disagree with you. None of these standards, when 

they are set, are attained. That is the point. It is an objective to 

be worked at over time. There was a strategy that this might take 

until 2025 to be fully implemented. 

But in the course of laying out that vision and having folks 

across the country work toward that vision, you end up saving a 
242 

tremendous amount of money and a tremendous amount of lives. 

I, as a Senator from Oregon, fighting for the quality of life of Oregonians, deeply resent folks fighting for oil industry that are trying to damage the health of my constituents and Americans across 

this country. It is a question of values and valuing profits of companies over the health of our citizens, it is a character issue, and 

that is what these hearings are all about. We are charged with 

Hamilton to determine whether or not an individual is of fit character. To me this is a character issue, valuing profits over people’s 

health. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Merkley. 

I am submitting for the record a report by the National Black 

Chamber of Commerce titled Potential Impact of Proposed EPA 

Regulations on Low Income Groups and Minorities. The report goes 

from 2015 and goes on to say that EPA regulations, including its 

regulation on carbon dioxide emissions, would result in the year 

2020 in nearly 200,000 black jobs would be lost, and more than 

300,000 Hispanic jobs would be lost. Additionally, commensurate 

with this, there would be median household income significant decreases throughout the communities listed in the report. 

[The referenced report follows:] 
243 

NBCC National Black 

Chamber of Commerce® 

PO II '\II \I I\ II'\( I 01 I'ROI'OSI D I P \I{ I ( .t I \ 110'\S 

0'\ I 0\\ I'\( 0\11 (,1{01 PS \ \D \11'\0RIIII S 

I; •,<...., J , ••• )1.{ 

JUNE 2015 
244 

CONTENTS 

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................. v 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... vii 

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 

II. THE EPA CLEAN POWER PLAN ......................................................................... 2 

It .A. The EPA Plan ....................................................................................................... 2 

II.B. Opposition to the Plan ........................................................................................... 3 

Ill. LEGACY STUDIES OF THE IMPACTS OF CARBON REGULATION ................. 7 

III.A. Studies of the Impact of Waxman-Markey ........................................................... 7 

111.8. Studies of the Impact of Climate Change Legislation ........................................ 13 

lli.C. U.S. Energy Information Administration Reports ............................................... 17 

IV. STUDIES OF THE IMPACT OF THE EPA REGULATIONS ............................... 21 

IV .A. Summary Results of Recent Studies ................................................................. 21 

IV.B. Impacts on GOP, Jobs, and Incomes ................................................................ 24 

IV.C. Impacts on Energy Costs and Expenditures ..................................................... 33 

V. STATE IMPACTS ................................................................................................. 40 

V.A. C02 Emissions by State ..................................................................................... 40 

V.B. Impacts of C02 Restrictions on Individual States ............................................... 44 

VI. POPULAnON AND DEMOGRAPHIC TREND5 ................................................. 54 

VI .A. Definitions of Race and Ethnicity ........................................................................ 54 

Vl.B. Black and Hispanic Populations ............................ , ............................................ 54 

VI.C. State Concentrations of the Black and Hispanic Populatlons ............................. 56 

VI.D. State Black and Hispanic Population Trends ..................................................... 51 

VI. E. Impacts on States Where Black and Hispanic Populations are Concentrated ... 61 

VI.F. Specific State Studies ......................................................................................... B5 

VI.F.1. Ohio ............................................................................................................. 65 

VI.F.2. Tex.as ........................................................................................................... 67 

VI.F.3. Virginia ......................................................................................................... 69 

VII. IMPACTS OF THE EPA PLAN ON BLACKS, AND HISPANICS ....................... 71 

VU.A. Economic Status of Blacks and Hispanics ....................................................... 71 

VII.A.1. Income, Earnings, and Wealth ................................................................... 71 

VII.A.2. The Economic Vulnerability of Blacks and Hispanics .................................. 73 

iii 
245 

ABSTRACT 

EPA is proposing new regulations, including guidelines to reduce C02 emissions from 

existing fossil-fueled power plants. These regulations would have serious economic, 

employment, and energy impacts at the national level and for all states, and the impacts 

on low-income groups, Blacks, and Hispanics would be especially severe. The EPA 

rules would: 1) Significantly reduce U.S. GOP every year over the next two decadesover $2.3 trillion; 2) Destroy millions of jobs; 3) More than double the cost of power and 

natural gas to over $1 trillion; 4) Require the average family to pay over $1,225 more for 

power and gas in 2030 than in 2012. 

The EPA regulations will increase Hispanic poverty by more than 26% and Black 

poverty by more than 23%. The energy burdens for Blacks and Hispanics will increase 

and large numbers of both groups will be forced into energy poverty (Figure AB-1), and 

Black and Hispanic household incomes will decline by increasing amounts each year 

(Figure AB-2). There would be increasing job losses: By 2035, cumulative job losses 

for Blacks will total about 7 million and for Hispanics will total 12 million. Most job 

losses would occur in the states in which Blacks and Hispanics are most heavily 

concentrated (Figure AB-3). 

Figure AB·1: Increases In Energy Burdens Figure AB-2: Losses in Median Household Incomes 

40% 

-$200 

30% 

20% 

Black Hispanic -$1.000 2020 2025 2.030 2035 

"2025 2D35 

The EPA regulations will thus disproportionately harm 

v 
246 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

"There are a Jot of people on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum that are 

going to die.~ Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) commenting on EPA's Clean Power Plan. 

"It's the green movement's new Jim Crow law,· Deneen Borelli, FreedomWorks. 

"This rule will Impact African-Americans more severely than any other group, • Harry 

Alford, President and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. 

In June 2014, EPA proposed guidelines to reduce C02 emissions from existing 

fossil-fueled power generating units in the electric power sector - the Clean Power Plan 

(CPP). This Plan, and other proposed EPA regulations, would place restrictions on the 

availability and increase the prices of energy, especially electricity. The economic 

impacts of the EPA regulations in terms of GOP, incomes, industrial activity, jobs, and 

other indicators would likely be severe. Due to their economic vulnerability, the. impacts 

on low-income groups, Blacks, and Hispanics would be disproportionate and especially 

serious. This report analyzes the likely economic, employment, and energy market 

impacts of the EPA Plan with special emphasis on the impacts on low-income groups, 

Blacks, and Hispanics. 

Economic and Energy Impacts 

The EPA regulations would have serious economic, employment, and energy 

market impacts at the national level and for all states, and that the impacts on lowincome groups, Blacks, and Hispanics would be especially severe. We estimated that 

implementation of the EPA regulations would: 

• Require Incremental costs of nearly 'h trillion dollars (Table EX-1) 

• Significantly reduce U.S. GOP every year over the next two decades, and 

GOP could be reduced by over $2.3 trillion compared to the reference 

case -which assumed no EPA carbon restrictions 

• Destroy mJiiions of jobs over the next two decades 

• Significantly reduce U.S. household incomes over the next two decades 

In addition, the EPA Plan would greatly increase U.S. energy costs, and by 2030 

these increases (above the reference case) oould: 

• More than double the cost of power and gas to over $1 trillion 

• Cost the U.S. eoonomy $565 billion more per year In 2030 than it did in 2012, 

representing a 121 percent increase (Table EX-2) 

• Require the average family to pay over $1,225 more for power and gas in 2030 

than they did in 2012. 

vii 
247 

Figure EX-1: Percent Hispanic of the Total U.S. Population: 1970 • 2060 

36% 

30% 

26% 

20% 

16% 

10% 

6% 

0% 

1970 

I 2000 

I 2010 

I 2020 

I 2030 2040 2060 2060 

The EPA regulations will impact minorities disproportionately, both because they 

have lower incomes to begin with, but also because they have to spend proportionately 

more of their incomes on energy, and rising energy costs inflict great harm on minority 

families. 

Black and Hispanics will be adversely affected threefold if the EPA Plan is 

implemented: Their incomes will be less than they would without the regulations, their 

rates of unemployment will increase substantially, and it will take those who are out of 

work longer to find another job. These impacts on earnings and employment will 

increase the rates of poverty among Blacks and Hispanics, and we estimate that one of 

the impacts of implementing the EPA regulations will be to, by 2025 (Figure EX-2): 

Figure EX-2: Increases in 2025 Poverty Rates Caused by the EPA Regulations 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

Black Hispanic 

Reference 111EPA Plan 
248 

Jobs Impacts 

Figure EX-3: Losses In Black and Hispanic Median 

Household Incomes Caused by the EPA Regulations 

$0 

-$200 II 

-$600 1111 

-$800 

-$1,000 2020 2025 2030 2035 

"'Black 1111 Hispanic 

The unemployment rates of Blacks and Hispanics have consistently been much 

higher than average and higher than those for Whites. Blacks and Hispanics are also at 

a disadvantage in the labor force when they are employed, for they tend to be 

disproportionably concentrated in lower paid jobs. NationWide, implementation of the EPA regulations would result in the loss of an increasingly large number of Black a n ~ _ 1. Hispanic jobs (Figure EX-4): ~ 

• llll!!ll ; IUIJ IIU,I81!1116ii 1M IJJHM %1!EI !~a m~~lh SJO,G®G lib I I I UIIU 1111111 • In 2025, more than 400,000 Black jobs would be lost and nearly 700,000 

Hispanic jobs would be lost. 

• In 2030, 470,000 Black jobs would be lost and more than 800,000 

Hispanic jobs would be lost. 

• In 2035, 535,000 Black jobs would be lost and nearly 900,000 Hispanic 

jobs would be lost. 

Figure EX-4: Black and Hispanic Job Losses Caused by the EPA Regulations 
249 

• Hispanics spend 90 percent more of their income on food, five percent 

more on housing, 40 percent more on clothing, and 10 percent more on 

utilities than do Whites. 

Implementing the EPA regulations will likely exacerbate this situation by forcing 

Blacks and Hispanics to spend an even more disproportionate share of their incomes -

which will have been reduced due to the effects of the C02 restrictions - on basic 

necessities. 

Finally, the cumulative impact of increased unemployment, reduced incomes, 

and increased prices for housing, basic necessities, energy, and utilities resulting from 

the EPA regulations will be to further reduce Black and Hispanic discretionary incomes. 

Discretionary income is the money that remains for spending or saving after people pay 

their taxes and purchase necessities. It is an important concept both because of the 

finandal flexibility it gives individuals and because many businesses depend on 

discretionary spending for sales and profits. Implementing the EPA Plan will reduce the 

average discretionary incomes of both Blacks and Hispanics. 

Increased Energy Poverty 

One of the more serious, but less recognized effects of implementing the EPA 

regulations will be to significantly increase the energy burdens for Blacks, and Hispanics 

and increase the numbers of Blacks and Hispanics suffering from "energy poverty." For 

tens of millions of low-income households, higher energy prices will intensify the 

difficulty of me~ting the costs of basic human needs, while increasing energy burdens 

that are already excessive. At the same time, the EPA regulation will threaten lowincome access to vital energy and utility services, thereby endangering health and 

safety while creating additional barriers to meaningful low-income participation In the 

economy. 

The price increases resulting from the Plan would be highly regressive - they 

would place a relatively greater burden on lower-Income households than on higherincome ones. In addition to health risks, excessive energy burdens cause a variety of 

difficulties for low-lncome households, and "Inability to pay utilities is second only to 

inability to pay rent as a reason for homelessness. • 

A major negative effect of the EPA regulations would be to significantly increase 

the energy burdens for Blacks and Hispanics and to force large numbers of both groups 

into energy poverty. Implementing the regulations would (Figure EX-5): 

• In 2025, increase the energy burden of Blacks by 16 percent and 

Hispanics by 19 percent 

• By 2035, increase the energy burden of Blacks by more than one-third 

and Hispanics by more than 35 percent 

Figure EX-5: Increases In Black and Hispanic 

xlil 
250 

100% 

80% 

60% 

40% 

1 I I 20% 

0% 

Arizona California Florida Georgia llllnola New York Texas 

• Nominal Dollano Constant 2012 Dollano 

Nevertheless, since the EPA regulations would require continuing and 

increasingly severe reductions in the use of fossil energy to produce electricity in the 

states and cause large energy price increases. If the regulations are implemented all 

states will suffer substantial and increasingly severe economic and jobs Impacts: 

• Residents of all states will face increased costs for energy, utilities, and for 

other goods and services and will experience increased costs of living. 

• Energy and electricity prices in each state would increase substantially, 

but to different degrees. 

• The growth rates of state wages and incomes would be negatively 

affected over the next two decades, and by 2025 states' per capita 

personal incomes woold be significantly lower than in the absence of the 

EPA regulation. 

• Millions of jobs would be lost in the states, employment would be lower, 

and unemployment higher. 

• Industries and firms will relocate among states, thus causing a further loss 

of jobs in many states. 

• New firms will hesitate to locate in some states, thus causing a reduction 

in the number of new jobs created. 

• The combination of reduced economic activity in the states, decreased 

personal incomes for states' residents, and increased unemployment will 

strain state and local government budgets and result in reduced public 

services and increased taxes. 

Blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately located in certain states, and their 

population concentration in these states will increase over time. We estimated the 

impacts of the EPA regulations on incomes in the seven states with the highest 

concentrations of Blacks and Hispanics: Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, 

New York, and Texas (Figure EX-7). In all states (except Georgia), the impacts on 

Hispanic Incomes exceed the impacts on Black incomes, since there are more 

XV 
251 

The largest job losses for Blacks caused by the EPA regulations will also occur in 

Texas, and in 2025 the Plan will result in nearly 125,000 additional Blacks being 

unemployed in the state. Nevertheless, the job losses resulting from the EPA Plan are 

substantial in every state. For example, in 2025, Hispanic job losses will total: 

• 135,000 in California 

• More than 75,000 in New York 

• 60,000 in Florida 

• 60,000 in Illinois 

• Nearly 25,000 in Arizona 

In 2025, average Black job losses will total: 

• 60,000 in New York 

• 50,000 in Illinois 

• 45,000 in Florida 

• 43,000 in Georgia 

• 26,000 in California 

While Hispanic jobs losses exceed Black job losses in all of the states except 

Georgia, in some states the differences in total job losses for the two groups are 

relatively small- for example, in Florida, Illinois, and New York. 

We estimated the increases in Hispanic and Black energy burdens in the states 

in 2025 resulting from the EPA regulations and found that (Figures EX-9): 

• The energy burdens for both Blacks and Hispanics increase. 

• For each group, the increased energy burdens are the largest in Texas. 

xvii 
252 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Here we go again 

on round two. 

I am happy that we have an opportunity to continue questioning 

with you, General Pruitt. 

Nebraska, much like Oklahoma, is a rural State. In many cases 

the closest town or the neighbor can be located miles and sometimes hours away. In Nebraska one in four jobs is directly tied to 

production agriculture. Under this Administration farmers and 

ranchers felt especially targeted by the EPA. For example, in 2011 

and 2012 EPA Region 7 conducted aerial surveillance or flyovers of 

feed yards in my State. While flying over my State EPA documented these facilities with photographs. 

This was very disconcerting to me given that many livestock producers in Nebraska also live and raise their families on these properties. Not only were these producers not informed beforehand but 

the EPA has already delegated the authority to carry out the Clean 

Water Act in Nebraska to the State Department of Environmental 

Quality. 

What will you do to ensure that the EPA sticks to its core mission? Furthermore, how will you work with the regulated community, including agriculture, to build trust among constituencies that 

have been, I would say, the subject of bullying tactics by this EPA 

that we have now? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, I indicated in my opening statement some 

core themes, if confirmed as Administrator, that I would seek to 

comply with. One is public participation, full participation to ensure that all voices are heard as the EPA conducts its activities 

with respect to rulemaking particularly. I think perhaps what you 

are referring to is the lack of that voice or opportunity in the last 

several years. So I would work to build a collaborative relationship 

with those States. As I have indicated I think the Departments of 

Environmental Quality at the State level are valuable partners, 

that we need to restore their confidence in the partnership with the 

EPA and then seek to listen to the community concerns in addressing and responding to environmental issues. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. 

In one of her exit interviews, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy 

has admitted that she has had a bad relationship with agriculture 

and with the agriculture community. She listed it as one of her regrets. I think a bad relationship is an understatement in this case. 

This Administration’s EPA philosophy is diametrically opposed to 

the idea that farmers can be good stewards of our land, our water, 

our environment. Instead, it seemed that this Administration’s 

EPA wanted to regulate. In some cases, it looked like they wanted 

to prevent farming. The agriculture community is looking forward 

to a new leadership at the EPA and working with you. 

Mr. Chairman, I have here some statements from agriculture officials and groups I would like inserted into the record. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
253 

Adam Putnam: Scott Pruitt will unravel 

mess at EPA 

Scott Pruitt (Andrew Hamik I AP) 

By Adam Putnam 

My Word columnist 

SHARE THIS 

f 

JANUARY 4, 2017 

Adam Putnam: Scott Pruitt will unravel mess at EPA 

S ince President Obama took office in 2009, the Emironmcntal Protection Agency has published 

more than 4,000 new rules and finalized 186 new regulations, a legacy of which no one should 

be proud. 

Collectively, the EPA's new regulations require Americans to spend 33 million additional hours filing 

paperwork with the federal government and cost Americans more than $344 billion, according to the 
254 

American Action Forum, a center-right policy institute. For that amount of money, we could buy 300 

stealth bombers and 2,ooo military tanks and still have plenty left over for a round-trip to the moon. 

In reality, though, this EPA's financial blow affects every American, as it negatively impacts our gross 

domestic product, kills thousands of jobs and increases the cost of living in our country. 

Not only do the EPA rules have serious economic consequences, but they are far outside the EPA's 

scope of authority, violating states' rights and, in many cases, violating the U.S. Constitution. The end 

of the Obama EPA cannot come soon enough. 

Thankfully, appointed EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has the experience, understanding of the law 

and courage to get this out-of-control federal agency back on track. 

I joined Oklahoma's Attorney General Pruitt in February 2015 to testify before Congress about one of 

the EPA's worst rules of the past eight years - the Waters of the United States Rule. This rule was, in 

no uncertain terms, an expansion of federal jurisdiction, infringement on states' rights and an 

unscientific approach to improving the quality oflakes, streams and rivers in the United States. 

The EPA had made claims this rule was a simple clarification of what bodies of water were subject to 

the Clean Water Act, and that these clarifications would have little impact on communities. Its 

actions speak louder than words, however. 

In 2014, the EPA threatened to fine a Wyoming man $75,000 a day in noncompliance penalties over 

a stock pond on his eight-acre farm. Anyone can understand why we could not take the EPA for its 

word. 

During this joint congressional hearing of the House and Senate, I witnessed firsthand Pruitt's 

balanced approach to regulation, one that conserves our natural resources and protects the 

environment, while also fostering economic growth and, most important, protecting states' rights. He 

has a clear understanding where it is appropriate for the EPA to assert a role when it is necessary to 

protect our natural resources. 

The numbers don't lie: 4,000 new rules, 33 million hours of paperwork and $334 billion in damages 

resulting from the egregious, overstepping regulations rolled out by Obama's EPA over the past eight 

years. 

But this nightnlare is almost over. With Scott Pruitt in charge, we can finally unravel the mess of the 

EPA, and begin developing and implementing thoughtful policies that will make measurable 

improvements to our natural resources and unleash an energy revolution that will bring jobs and 

higher wages to Americans. 
255 

Adam Putnam, a member of the Florida Cabinet, is commissioner qf agriculture. 

Copyright C 2017, Orlando Sentinel 

This article Is related to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, Barack Obama, Donald 

Trump 
256 

Minot Daily News 

BREAKING NEWS Newspaper delivery suspended outside of Minot 

Scott Pruitt will refocus the 

EPA's mission 

North Dakota Farm Bureau has vigorously opposed President Obama's 

activist EPA, and for good reason. In the last eight years, EPA has 

repeatedly targeted North Dakota's economic drivers: agriculture and 

energy. That's why NDFB supports incoming Environmental Protection 

Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt. We believe he will work to curb the 

agency's overreach and end the regulatory nightmare. 

Under the Obama administration, EPA has imposed more than 4,000 

new regulations costing billions of dollars of compliance costs for 

farmers, ranchers and small business owners across the country. 

In 2015, the EPA finalized the Waters of the United States rule, which 

expanded the definition of U.S. waters within the Clean Water Act. Under 

WOTUS, streams, creeks, ditches, brooks and even ponds are all under 

the purview of the EPA. A sizeable portion of private land in North 

Dakota would be under federal jurisdiction. If a farmer wanted to build a 

pond on his property he'd first have to go through the government or face 

heavy fines. This rule is not only unconstitutional, it is a direct attack on 

farmers. 

North Dakota's energy sector has been similarly hard-hit. The EPA has 

published a litany of rules and regulations to fundamentally alter the 

state's energy infrastructure. The EPA Power Plan, for example, requires 

North Dakota to reduce its carbon dioxide emission rate by 44.9 percent, 
257 

even though North Dakota is one of only 12 states that achieves all of 

EPA's air quality standards for public health. 

The nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to serve as 

administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is a welcome 

reprieve. He will bring a reasoned and balanced approach back to an 

agency run amok with unnecessary and flawed regulations which have 

done more to hurt our environment than help it. 

As attorney general, he helped develop robust regulations at the state 

level to implement economically viable conservation efforts. He reached 

across the aisle to pass meaningful regulations to protect Oklahoma 

waters and has aggressively pursed litigation against polluters. He's a 

stalwart defender of the EPA's mission to protect human health and the 

environment. 

The Obama administration's aggressive regulatory agenda has harmed 

the economy, destroyed jobs, and hurt communities across America. Scott 

Pruitt would pursue a different path, one that emphasizes collaboration 

and innovative problem-solving. Pruitt has proven that he will be a tough, 

responsible steward. He will safeguard the environment. He will follow 

law and process and distinguish between federal government mandates 

and that of the states. Most importantly, he will ensure that the EPA is 

charged with protecting all people. Republicans and Democrats in the 

new Congress should work to confirm Scott Pruitt as head of EPA in the 

same bipartisan spirit which he has demonstrated in his home state. 

Daryl Lies is president of the North Dakota Farm Bureau. 
258 

... 600 Maryland Ave. SW I Suite 1000W I Washington. DC 20024 

AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION" 

January 4, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6176 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6175 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

ph. 202.406.3600 

f_ 202.406.3606 

www.lb.org 

The American Farm Bureau Federation strongly supports the nomination of Scott Pruitt as 

Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and urges you to vote in 

favor of his confirmation. 

Scott Pruitt is an ideal nominee for EPA Administrator for many reasons, but his nomination 

should command respect from Senators for one reason above all: he has profound respect for the 

laws written by Congress. In contesting EPA's 'waters ofthe US' (WOTUS) rule, Mr. Pruitt is 

in fact defending the bipartisan view of Congress that the agency has illegally overstepped its 

bounds and ignored the U.S. Supreme Court. Similarly, in the stance he has taken on the Clean 

Power Plan, he is defending Congress: in 2009, the Senate failed even to take up for debate the 

cap-and-trade plan narrowly approved by the House. Mr. Pruitt very soundly takes the view that 

Congress has not authorized the sweeping attempt by EPA to coerce action by the states. 

No one cares more about the responsible stewardship of our land, air, and water than American 

farmers and ranchers. Our livelihoods depend on it. In recent years, farmers and ranchers have 

suffered under burdensome, unnecessary and, too often, unlawful federal regulations 

promulgated by the EPA. We desperately need an administrator who understands the challenges 

our farmers and ranchers face in producing safe, wholesome and affordable food for our nation 

and the world. 

Some activists are attempting to characterize this as a debate over environmental goals. Nothing 

could be further from the truth. It is about respect for the law and for an agency that will live 

within the statutory programs Congress has authorized. AFBF supports Scott Pruitt for EPA 

administrator because he will restore respect for the law and enforce it fairly. Further, he 

understands how and when federal power should be exercised. We support him because he has 
259 

demonstrated a keen understanding of the devastating economic implications of federal 

overreach. 

Scott Pruitt will put the EPA back on track and ensure that federal decisions are based on sound 

science, not politics. He will produce a fair regulatory environment that respects the rule oflaw. 

We urge his confirmation. 

Sincerely, 

/.Jty-~ 

Zippy Duvall 

President 

cc: The United States Senate 
260 

ALFA supports Trump's pick to 

lead EPA 

1'rJ/JiisMd: 1lA!Idly. II«BBIIer 11th 1111. 1".31 pill EST 

l/pl/.llrd: 1lA!Idly. II«BBiier 11th 2114 I:S1 pill EST 

By AIJtn Henry, Report• CONIIKT 

{Source: WSHIT2} 

00@1S21 

MONTGOMERY, Al (WSFA)- As President-Elect Donald Trump 

continues to fill his cabinet some organizations, like ALFA. are 

keeping track of who he appoints to see how these new officials 

could impact Alabama. 

"We're watching that very dosely and there are certain positions 

that we're very Interested in as It could affect farmers in the state 

of Alabama. one of those Is the EPA administrator. • said Brian 

Hardin, Director of Governmental and Agriculture Programs at 

ALFA. 

Last week. Trump nominated Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

His official biography describes him as •a leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda." 

Hardin says that's a stance that could also benefit local farmers. 

"Pruitt has a history of challenging the EPA and their overreaching regulations, to challenge and 

push back what they're trying to do through the EPA to Impact poultry farmers and other 

livestock farmers." he said. 

And with fewer regulations. Alabama farmers could do more. 

"When farmers are able to do more with their land, expand and give them a reason to expand 

and grow and not be putting that expense or that cost toward accommodating additional 

regulations. that's good for the state,'' Hardin said. 

At $70 billion a year, agriculture is Alabama's largest industry. 

But Trump's pick for the person who could have the most impact on Alabama's farmers. the 

Secretary of Agriculture, hasn't been announced yet 

Pruitt would need to be confirmed In the senate to take the EPA job but Democrats have vowed 

to fight his appointment 

Copyright 2016 WSFA 12 Nf:ws. All rights reserved. 
261 

Praaldent-GIBd Donald Trump'* provan he haa 

'tkrtac:J(for-I.Umlngheadl.thll;ear.Even.aflarhls 

drsmaUc campaign, Tn.mp's l1ICII1I: adlonS "'-

ltilll1lllnllg8d to COf'4:uralin:mg arnoliOM frOm 

difftlnml:intenMt~.Onaofhislatest 

c:onti'OVIW8!e&- nominating Oklahoma's Attomey 

General 8catt PnlltiiD laactthe Erwironmantal 

Protectlon Agency, Nallonal Cetl!emen'• Beef 

Assochtllon'sVittPresidentof~ 

Aftln CORn WoQdd told Radio Clklahocnt Ag 

Networii.Farm Direc!DrRan Hays ina raoant~ this move faa "homerun• In hla book 

"WW!!'re llduallyexcitacl about a lotOfthel'laflltSW&hiMI seen lnduding Scott Pruftl.asePA HeaQ,• 

~aald. 'WelrnQwthattllllflgolngtobrtngprobablyamud'ldilferen1 aprproachthanwt\atWft 

nave seen forquii:B soma lime and that's $p8fl'llng multiple admini&tJatkms, • 

~BaytheandhJscolleagt.MisaraBllta.dsboutlhls-fresh~!CJ~wilhanagfiiandlyEPA. tQroll bac:Kmanyofthaenv:in:lnmentelruleaand regufatlont lhe aganc:y paiNlBd OY$I" 

ti'IB last eight yeara that m811)' CDI'IIIIdar to be bald messurM of govemmenta1 QV8IN8Ch, such aa the 

~OflhaUnileciSiatearule. 

Still, lhareara l1oclpalhal mustbejLmlPO(Ithroughbafwe Pruittcanotnclallytske tta retns. 

CongAto must ftnlt 9J1P10¥1t all of TIU!IIp'a I'IC!flinMs bafote they can be l'omlally in-.taltad to their 

appointed positicnt. Pruitt: I'm along !!'8t:kn!CO!d of fighting the Obama admlnlstnillcn on 

envlronmenlal poticyamJWoodBUsaphaa:¢18Ct11 !hfl Democrats on hb hearing commi\teewltl not 

mabil.easyrortum. 

*They'reabso:llltfllygoingtothrOW .upawrykindofrtliKI bloc:KO\d lhant,"\'lltJOdaUpredlcted. • ._taP done aid of.goodthirg&fOfagt'lcUltlJreancl that'll one thing we areu.ll going to have lode is link 

anna 8l'ld get behlrld him, baaWM.,...~ U'lat nl5 nomination hss'lng will be a MifY one.· 

Ustan 1o Hays and W:lodall dl!IQJIS Sc:on Ptuitfa nominfttiorl tc head 1he EPA. on today's Beet' 

·=· 

The Beef Bllzz ls a regular featl$ heerd on radio $b11ion$ arCUid lhe regjcn .on !he ~ Oklahanle 

Netwattlll1d ill a regularaudKJfflral:l.n!foundonthlswebaiteas\lf81l Click on the LISTEN BAR 

below for today'a 8htM end check cut CM"archiYes for alder Beer BLIZZ showB c:overing the gamut of 

thebeafcaWeir'IWBfr;today. 

+oKlAHOMA 

AGCREDIT 

rt•ANCING lURA\ OltLAIIOIU. 
262 

January 10, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso, Chairman 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

The Honorable Tom Carper, Ranking Member 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

Nebraska Cattlemen strongly supports the nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General 

(AG) Scott Pruitt for Administrator of the United State Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). In the United States, the cattle industry represents the largest segment of 

agriculture and cattle farmers and ranchers represent the largest land owner group. We 

are pleased to see General Pruitt as the nominee for EPA Administrator. 

General Pruitt will bring a science based, common sense approach to the strategies and 

objectives of the EPA. Mr. Pruitt understands the importance of sound win-win policy 

that will translate into EPA strategies that work to protect the environment while 

improving America's agriculture productivity. He knows firsthand that farmers and 

ranchers are the original stewards of the environment with an unparalleled commitment 

to responsible natural resource management that yields multi-generational 

improvement. Simply put, Mr. Pruitt sees clearly that agriculture and environment are 

not opposing terms but rather are complementary. He will work to cultivate that 

relationship which will lead to the United States leading in food and fiber production 

while improving the environment in which it is accomplished. 

We encourage your support for Attorney General Scott Pruitt and we look forward to 

working with him as a partner for shared strategies and solutions that benefit the 

environment and agriculture productivity. 

Sincerely, 

Troy Stowater, NC President 

• 1010 Lincoln Mall, Suite 101 • Lincoln, NE 68508~2833 

(402) 475~2333 • Fax (402) 475-0822 • nc@nccattJemcn.org • www.ncbraskacattlcmeo.org 
263 

Listen Live 

' RADI0570 

WNAX 

Home • News » Story 

NEWS 

American Farm Bureau Says EPA Nominee 

Good for Agriculture 

1 MONTH AGO IN AGRICULTURE 

PHOTO:WNAX 
264 

o G+l 

Listen Live 

Amencan Farm Bureau Federation ofhaals say the President-elect's pick of Scott Pruitt to head 

up the EPA is welcome news for farmers and ranchers. South Dakota Farm Bureau President 

Scott VanderWal who also serves as AFBF Vice President says Pruitt will be good for both 

business and agriculture and will reign in the agency's regulatory overreach. 

He says Pruitt will make sure any EPA regulation doesn't cause undue harm or cost to businesses 

or agriculture. 

VanderWal thinks they can work with Pruitt to build support for renewable fuels and the need for 

the RFS and other biofuels policies. 

VanderWal is also optimistic Pruitt will bring a new degree of fairness for agriculture. 

0 WNAX Radjo 

Scott VanderWal Dn EPA Pick 

TAGS: 

STORY© 2016 WNAX- IMAGES © 2016 WNAX 

.. SOUNDCLOUD 

Share 
265 

USer Name o .... 

Pfaa&aiQnil'l(abow)orJ.llllHdlla 

~ 

Frtuy, Ju.-y 13, 2017 

Oklahoma Secretary of Agriculture 

Happy With Trump's EPA Selection 

1211412018 

OICL.AHOMA CITY - SecreCaJy t:A Agrto.db.Jrl!l Jtn Reese has Issued lhe folowing 

llfatarnent aftw PteSldenl-elect Donald Trump recenlly nominated Oldahcma Attorney 

General Scotl. Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency: 

•Scott Prulll: Ita great Hledlon &obe8dndnlslnJiorofEPA. The UltJ'a.green 

enWonmental groupa are predlcllng Armageddon over hia nomination, It wan'1 be 

Armageddon, bUt 1 major duat up WOUld be grul. Tlla EPA ha8 been runl'ling over 

Congreea, dtlas and towns. busln8P81, private 18ndDWrMn and even the courts ftw 

many ygw. The prapoaed watare oflhe US ('M)TUS) lathe beat example t:A EPA 

JiOIIIWWf'NII apologizing tor running IM!It evetyOne, bill. conllnu.ng to run over ua. Finally 

• court atcpped them. 

"EnvllonmenUIIIIts dkln1 need Congreu, lhe Prellldent, or even promulgated rules, 

ThayWOIIIdjU&IIUtlhe EPA-·sue and satt~e•IWI gellheirway. No! every 

lihll<l!l 

en\otranrnenblllmprovernent was concel¥ecl at EPA HQ. ~of our envtronmentallmprovern.ents are alate or locally drlwn. We have more EPA 

aucceas fiiOI1el., I"8IIKWing phosphorua 8"1d ~from atreama more than any other state.. 

"Wa need !he EPA. They have ast!ated Oklahoma arnf America il'llmprovlng and protecting our air, water and land. Scott Pruitt will continue 

EPA'a elfortllo protect our envlronrr1ent, but wllh respect towards lime! ownen1, taxpayers, munidpalilin, bualneaaes, aN:t Congreaa: Mid 

...... 

Comments made about this article - 0 Total 

Comment on this article 

RSS 

Current Issue 

1112!.!017 

Calendar 
266 

January 17,2017 

/;;;;;;.! National CaHiemen•s 

\:; • .":~. Beef Association 

USA 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6176 

The Honorable Thomas Carper 

Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6176 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) urges you to vote in favor of 

confirmation of Scott Pruitt as Administrator of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). NCBA is a trade association that represents U.S. cattle producers, with more than 

30,000 direct members. Through state affiliates NCBA represents 175,000 of America's 

farmers and ranchers who provide a significant portion of the nation's food supply. 

As Oklahoma's Attorney General, Mr. Pruitt led the fight to bring common sense back to 

environmental regulation and he was an unrivaled defender of private property rights. In fact, 

in 2015 the Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association honored Mr. Pruitt with its Distinguished 

Service Award for his dedication to those principles. Likewise, cattle producers across the 

country have rallied in support of Mr. Pruitt's nomination to be the next EPA Administrator, 

as memorialized in the enclosed letter. His legal background and experience as Attorney 

General ensures the EPA will follow the rule of the law while fulfilling its important mission 

of protecting human health and the environment. Agency decisions grounded in science, 

constrained by the law and Congress will achieve long-lasting success. 

Mr. Pruitt brings with him an opportunity to reinvigorate the cooperative federalism approach 

that is embodied in our nation's environmental statutes - namely that States are the primary 

enforcers and implementers of environmental programs while the federal government retains a 

backstop and support role as mandated by Congress. In recent years we have seen a shift 

away from the approach mandated by Congress and movement toward a policy of federal 

usurpation of state programs through increasingly burdensome regulation and enforcement. 

The Senate can restore the balance by confirming Mr. Pruitt. 

Cattle producers want a healthy environment and are personally invested in keeping the land, 

water, and air clean for their children and grandchildren. Agriculture cannot be viewed merely 

as a regulatory target when improvements can be realized by treating farmers and ranchers as 

partners. Outgoing Administrator McCarthy stated that her top regret was failing to connect 

with rural America. With Pruitt at the helm, NCBA is confident that the EPA can excel at its 

mission and foster an agency culture that engages rural Americans as partners in our nation's 

effort to protect the environment. 

Center for Government Affairs • 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW • Suite 801 • Wasrington, DC 20004 • (202) 347-0228 • www beefusa_org 
267 

Simoorely, ~ 

~.~ President 

cc: U.S. Senate 

2 
268 

January 10,2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso, Chairman 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

The Honorable Tom Carper, Ranking Member 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

On behalf of cattlemen and women, the undersigned organizations strongly support the nomination of Oklahoma Attorney 

General (AG) Scott Pruitt for Administrator of the United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1n the United States, 

the cattle industry represents the largest segment of agriculture and cattle farmers and ranchers represent the largest land owner 

group. We are pleased to see General Pruitt as the nominee for EPA Administrator. 

General Pruitt will bring a science based, common sense approach to the strategies and objectives of the EPA. Mr. Pruitt understands 

the importance of sound win-win policy that will translate into EPA strategies that work to protect the environment while improving 

America's agriculture productivity. He knows firsthand that farmers and ranchers are the original stewards of the environment 

with an unparalleled commitment to responsible natural resource management that yields multi-generational improvement. 

Simply put, Mr. Pruitt sees clearly that agriculture and environment are not opposing terms but rather are complementary. He will 

work to cultivate that relationship which will lead to the United States leading in food and fiber production while improving the 

environment in which it is accomplished. 

We encourage your support for Attorney General Scott Pruitt and we look forward to working with him as a partner for shared 

strategies and solutions that benefit the environment and agriculture productivity. 

Sincerely, 

Alabama Cattlemen's Association 

Arirona Cattle Feeders Association 

Arizona Cattle Growers' Association 

Arkansas Cattlemen's Association 

California Cattlemen's Association 

Colorado Cattlemen's Association 

Colorado Livestock Association 

Florida Cattlemen's Association 

Georgia Cattlemen's Association 

Hawaii Cattlemen's Association 

Illinois Beef Association 

Iowa Cattlemen's Association 

Indiana Beef Association 

Kansas Livestock Association 

Kentucky Cattlemen's Association 

Michigan Cattlemen's Association 

Mississippi Cattlemen's Association 

Missouri Cattlemen's Association 

Montana Stockgrower's Association 

Nebraska Cattlemen 

Nevada Cattlemen's Association 

New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association 

New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc. 

New York Beef Producer's Association 

North Carolina Cattlemen's Association 

North Dakota Stockman's Association 

Ohio Cattlemen's Association 

Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association 

Oregon Cattlemen's Association 

Pennsylvania Cattlemen's Association 

South Carolina Cattlemen's Association 

South Dakota Cattlemen's Association 

Tennessee Cattlemen's Association 

Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers 

Texas Cattle Feeders Association 

Virginia Cattlemen's Association 

Wyoming Stock Growers Association 
269 

Iowa Farm Bureau Supportive of 

New EPA Administrator POSTED 4,55 AM, DECEMBER 21, 2016, BY STAFF WRITER 

President-Elect Donald Trump chose Scott Pruitt, the attorney general for 

Oklahoma, to be the next EPA Administrator. 

The Iowa Farm Bureau supports the decision, calling Pruitt a leading advocate 

against an activist EPA, specifically noting how he's against the Waters of the U.S. 

rule. 

But Pruitt is also against the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), a rule forcing blends 

of ethanol into the fuel system. 

Iowa is a leader of ethanol, the nearly 43 plants in the state can produce up to 4 

billion gallons of the fuel. 
270 

IFB President Craig Hill says the RFS was drafted legitimately by congress, so 

implementing it is not an EPA over reach. 

Hill says, "We have the legislation, we just need to execute and implement the law 

and the EPA has a role in that with limited discretion. So we hope the new 

administrator adheres to the law and follows the rule of law." 

Hill adds, in the confirmation hearing, pro-ethanol Senators like Iowa's Chuck 

Grassley and Joni Ernst will have the opportunity to question Pruitt on his 

Renewable Fuel stances. 

SPONSORED CONTENT 

The ECO-Friendly Helmet 

JAN 12, 2017, BY CONNATIX 

ECOHELMET is made out 

of paper, and designed in 

a 'honey-combed' design, 

intended for the use of 

urban cyclists. 

EPA Nominee to Follow R'enewable New EPA Administrator Chosen 

Fuel Standard 
271 

http://qctimes.com/news/oplnlon/edltorial/columnists/guest/guest-view-pruitt-would-be-a-friendto-ag-atop/article_2690b847 -d 1 cf-55ce-abf9-a 14c28df2a3c.html 

Guest view: Pruitt would be a friend to ag atop EPA 

Tom Buchanan Dec 16,2016 

The first time I heard Scott Pruitt speak at a Farm Bureau event, I felt hope. Hope that 

the farming and ranching community had an effective advocate that understood we 

were seeing our livelihood slip away at the hands of an imperialist, out-of-control EPA. 
272 

Scott came across as a disciplined legal mind and strategist that had a plan to begin 

dismantling harmful, unnecessary regulations that would liberate the family farm and 

ranch from overzealous regulators and to focus once again on producing our nation's 

food supply. 

In the past few years, my neighbors and friends have collectively spent more time 

battling federal regulators trying to assert control over our ponds, dry creeks and 

waterways- and regulators working to thwart our ability to use our principal asset, 

our land, due to an irrational and outdated Endangered Species Act- than we have 

cutting wheat and selling livestock. 

However, since becoming Oklahoma attorney general, Pruitt has successfully led the 

litigation that led to an injunction on the proposed Waters of the U.S. Rule, and he 

negotiated agreements that brought common sense and relief for agriculture 

communities over the potential listing of the Lesser Prairie Chicken. These are just a 

few examples of his leadership abilities and his desire to see the rule of law restored. 

Beyond these policy successes, I have found Pruitt to be a genuine man filled with 

integrity. He is quick to listen, and slow to speak. He's a consensus builder that wants 

to understand the truth and find middle ground. 

With regards to the Renewable Fuel Standard, I know there are questions about how 

this will be addressed in the next administration with expiration coming in 2022. 

President-elect Donald Trump has said that he is a strong supporter of the RFS. Based 

on experience, I know Scott Pruitt will bring an open and fair-minded approach to this 

and every issue. 

Get news headlines sent daily to your inbox 

B Email I Sign Up! I 

Most importantly, he will certainly will be a tireless and welcome advocate for 
273 

agriculture. 

1 am confident that Attorney General Pruitt would not only bring common sense and 

sanity back to what has become a lawless agency, he would restore that agency to its 

original mission: assisting the states in achieving cleaner air and cleaner water. 

1 urge all in the agriculture community to vigorously support his nomination to head 

the EPA by contacting your senators. America's farmers and ranchers will have a more 

prosperous future with Scott Pruitt at the helm. 

Tom Buchanan is pr~sid~nt of Oklahoma Farm Bur~au. 

Currents 

~; Photos: Obama honors Biden with surprise ceremony, Presidential 

Medal of Freedom 

THE DOlLAR DAILY 

If You're a Homeowner, Congress Urges You Oaim Their $4,250 Rebate 

by Jan 31st 

How:n"!.'r How many bombs did the US drop in 2016? 

a.~ to 7 Cities to Visit on Your NFL Stadium Tour Getaway 

Today's top pies: Preparing for Chinese New Year and more 

Your daily 6: Bad boots make swastika imprint, too much snow and the 

Bara<:k·Biden bromance 
274 

Chris Jahn 

President 

F~~tilizer Institute 

Nourish, Replenish, Grow 

January 17, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6176 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6175 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

I am writing to you on behalf of the members of The Fertilizer Institute (TFl) to strongly endorse 

the nomination of Scott Pruitt as Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). Attorney General Pruitt's vast experience in both the public and private sectors makes 

him well qualified for this important position. 

TFI represents the nation's fertilizer industry including producers, importers, retailers, 

wholesalers and companies that provide services to the fertilizer industry. The U.S. fertilizer 

industry is one of the world's largest. The United States is the fourth-largest producer of 

nitrogen-based fertilizers in the world and the second largest producer of phosphate. The U.S. 

fertilizer industry generates more than $139 billion in economic benefit and provides 80,099 

direct jobs and 372,603 indirect jobs for a total of more than 452,702 U.S.jobs. 

TFI' s members are committed to enhancing their environmental stewardship efforts, as 

evidenced by the voluntary program created by the industry called the 4R Nutrient Stewardship 

Program. 4R Nutrient Stewardship is a framework designed to help farmers achieve cropping 

system goals, such as increased production, increased farmer profitability, enhanced 

environmental protection and improved sustainability. The success ofthis program is highly 

dependent on partnerships between farmers, agricultural retailers, federal, state and local 

governments and environmental organizations all working together with a shared goal of 

ensuring that fertilizer is applied by using the Right Source at the Right Rate at the Right Time 

and in the Right Place. 

Mr. Pruitt can attest, water quality and other long-term environmental challenges, are most 

effectively addressed by federal and state governments via the "cooperative federalism" 

partnership model as embodied in the Clean Water Act. Few individuals understand the 
275 

2 

importance of this model like Mr. Pruitt. He has been a consistent advocate for ensuring the 

appropriate balance between the need for federal regulations and the sovereignty of states. 

Mr. Pruitt is also mindful that the benefits of regulatory actions must outweigh their costs. He 

has demonstrated a commitment to this ideal and we believe he will work to ensure its reality as 

the EPA Administrator. 

TFI and its members similarly support common-sense regulations based on peer-reviewed sound 

science. Working in partnership with all stakeholders, we believe Mr. Pruitt will ensure that 

American agriculture is able to continue growing the food, fuel and fiber to feed the world. At 

the same time, we will work to ensure that our precious natural resources are safeguarded for 

generations to come. 

For the aforementioned reasons, we strongly support Attorney General Pruitt to be the 

Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and we urge your support of his 

confirmation. 

Sincerely, 

Chris Jahn 

President 

The Fertilizer Institute 

CC: Members of the United States Senate 
276 

Senator FISCHER. If I may, I would close by quoting a few of 

those. Jim Reese, the Oklahoma Secretary of Agriculture, says that 

‘‘Scott Pruitt will continue EPA’s efforts to protect our environment 

but with respect toward landowners, taxpayers, municipalities, 

businesses, and Congress.’’ That is nice to hear, sir. 

Troy Stowater, Nebraska Cattlemen president, stated, ‘‘Simply 

put, Mr. Pruitt sees clearly that agriculture and environment are 

not opposing terms, but rather they are complementary. He will 

work to cultivate the relationships which will lead to the United 

States leading in food and fiber production while improving the environment in which it is accomplished.’’ Again, I am happy to look 

forward to that relationship being established again so that all 

parts of our society here in this country can participate and receive 

the recognition that we are good stewards of the land. 

If confirmed, what will be your relationship with the agriculture 

community? Are you going to enforce current laws and will you also 

respect the limits that we have on those laws? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, on both counts, Senator, and also the theme I 

mentioned in my opening statement that I would highlight again, 

is that we need to reject this paradigm that if you are pro-energy, 

you are anti-environment or if you are pro-environment; you are 

anti-energy. I believe that we, as a country, have demonstrated 

that, and we have made great progress since the 1970s in improving our air quality and protecting our waters. We can grow an 

economy and also protect and be a good steward of our environment. We need to restore that proper balance and commitment to 

both as we seek to do our job. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. As I said earlier, every member of 

this Committee believes in clean air and clean water. We want an 

environment that is respected where we can manage our natural 

resources in a responsible manner. Thank you, sir. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Fischer. 

Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pruitt, I want to try to get your understanding. I heard you 

say that you wanted to see the regulations and the laws predictable 

so that stakeholders know exactly what is required so there is no 

confusion. 

I want to concentrate on the waters of the U.S. because ever 

since the Supreme Court decisions there has been an uncertainty 

as to what waters are, in fact, subject to regulation by the Federal 

Government and what waters are not. Do you believe that priority 

should be set by statute or should it be set by regulations from the 

EPA? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, I think that is a great question. If you look 

at the series of cases going back to Bayview all the way to 

Rapanos, I think you are exactly right. The definition in the Clean 

Water Act says that navigable waters are waters of the United 

States. That doesn’t provide a great deal of clarity to those that administer the law. I think the EPA taking steps to provide clarity 

is important absent Congress responding. I think that perhaps 

there is a time and place for Article 1 response, congressional response, to what this body means when it says navigable waters are 

waters of the United States. 
277 

Senator CARDIN. Of course, the Congress, for whatever reasons, 

for a long period of time, has not been able to respond as to what 

we think the definition of the waters of the U.S. should be. The Administration did come forward with proposed regulations which 

were resisted by many of the stakeholders that you are aware of. 

How would you define the waters of the U.S.? What was wrong 

in the regulation? I don’t want to go through all the details. Tell 

me, where do you think we should regulate? You already said more 

than just navigable. How do we define it? How do you do it? What 

did the Administration do wrong? 

Mr. PRUITT. The challenge up until now with respect to the current rule, this involves actually an air case, the UARG case, where 

Justice Scalia talked about the counterbalance to Massachusetts v. 

EPA where the steps taken by the EPA to take the endangerment 

finding in 2009 that dealt with title II mobile sources and then link 

that over the PSD Program was something Justice Scalia said 

transformed the statute and was not lawful or constitutional. 

I think the same thing perhaps is going on with the current rule. 

When you are classifying dry creek beds in southeast Oklahoma 

that are dry 90 percent of the year as a water of the United States, 

that clearly is something that is—— 

Senator CARDIN. The Administration, in its regulation, had certain exceptions that tried to deal with that. You obviously didn’t 

think those exceptions were clear enough. 

Mr. PRUITT. Actually, the Sixth Circuit said that those clarifications were not sufficient. I would agree with you, Senator Cardin, 

that I believe the clarity around this definition, the jurisdiction of 

the EPA, is essential to get right and to address. As I indicated 

earlier to some questions, the Supreme Court has actually taken up 

a matter from last Friday; it is more jurisdictional and not meritbased. But the response by Congress, the response to provide clarity, perhaps is a very important step to take. 

Senator CARDIN. I want to pursue this. I think we have asked 

questions for the record as to specific provisions you believe should 

be in that rule that would be different than the proposed rule. I 

would appreciate a response to that so we can try to see where we 

are heading in your thought process as to how you define the regulated waters of the U.S. That would be helpful to us. 

Mr. PRUITT. I think, Senator, the reason that is difficult, as you 

know, is because in that process, whatever process that would take 

place, that would be rulemaking which means there would be comment. 

Senator CARDIN. I understand that. I am not trying to get every 

I dotted and every T. I just want to get your philosophy as to where 

the waters of the U.S. lines would be drawn and where you took 

exception to the regulatory efforts of the Obama administration. 

Let me get to the second point, if I might, on fracking. Fracking 

is an interesting area because it is State-regulated principally. 

There are very few Federal regulations. My State has gas deposits 

that could be subject to fracking. Pennsylvania, our neighboring 

State, has done that. There have been some problems with pollution of water. We know about the gas releases that have already 

been talked about. There is some concern particularly with deep 

well drilling that when you inject the fluids back into the cavities, 
278 

that it may cause instability. In your State, I know there were a 

lot of earthquakes, and there has been talk about whether these 

earthquakes were motivated by the fracking activities or not. 

How well have the States regulated fracking? Where do you see 

the Federal role should be in protecting our environment from 

fracking? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am glad you mentioned the State role because we 

actually have been regulating hydraulic fracturing in Oklahoma 

since the late 1940s, early 1950s. It is not a new process. Horizontal drilling is, but the hydraulic fracturing process is not. Many 

States have been very aggressive in regulating it for a number of 

decades. 

With response to the seismicity issue you are talking about, the 

earthquakes in Oklahoma, the Corporation Commission has actually declared off limits certain drilling activity in hot spots already. 

They have taken a very aggressive approach. I, too, share their 

concern. I have been in conversation with the commissioners at the 

Corporation Commission; that is who has jurisdiction in this matter. They have taken very meaningful steps to declare off limits 

certain drilling activity to try to see if it will help reduce the number of earthquakes happening in Oklahoma. It has helped. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have two unanimous consent requests, so don’t start my clock 

yet. 

One is I really believe, and perhaps am overly sensitive to this, 

that Mr. Pruitt’s integrity has been put into question with the accusations of contributions to his campaign. I would like to keep in 

mind that the oil industry is a huge industry in my State of Oklahoma. They have things called PACs where the middle income people will say yes, they support me also. 

I think we need to have in the record that there are some things 

that are going on that should not be going on. This affects the 

Democrats and not the Republicans. There is a guy named Tom 

Steyer, I want to put this in the record, who actually said he was 

going to put $100 million into campaigns of individuals talking 

about global warming and what he expected. In 2014 he didn’t do 

that. He only put in $75 million of his own money. In 2016 he was 

the largest contributor putting in $86 million of his own money. I 

am not going to read this because it does reflect the names of people who are at this dais. 

I ask unanimous consent that this be entered into the record. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
279 

POLITICO 

)f-t_y.er h.os+<4 ..SV,. W\.-.l~'-'1<.- ~ S...,.. R...;J. 

._~ \... :1 l,..o-.. ;..,_ '2.D I'-\ \-o W>li-<-J'''"'- IN>.,.J .Jo 

~ ~!roM. h dec.-!- Ae""'-•~,...._-1-J +r 

,f;;!l:.;:., ~~ .. :t• •h ;~~ ..... ~~ .. ·+ ~!'•; ... !!:: .. "'"·!:':'•.:~••i.::"'"~..,.,,Jj #"M ~'~=~-' 

Steyer hopes to make climate change a top-tier issue In the election. 

Steyer plans SlOOM campaign push 

By ANDREW RESTUCCIA I 02/18/14 09:36AM EST I Updated 02/18/14 02:41PM EST 

Liberal billionaire Tom Steyer is laying plans to go big in the 2014 election. 

;:i: .. ,II!=::.:/J .,!' ...•. , .. 

The former hedge fund manager is hoping to spend $100 million- $50 million from his 

personal fortune and sse million from other donors- to make climate change a top-tier 

issue in the election, The New York Times is reporting. 

A person close to Steyer confirmed the $100 million figure to POUTICO but cautioned that 

it is not a ceiling. 

Steyer and his group NextGen Climate Action have emerged over the last year as a major 

player in the growing world of money and politics, a realm in which court decisions such as 
280 

Senator INHOFE. The other thing—— 

Senator CARPER. I’d like to object. I’d like to ask for clarification 

from my friend from Oklahoma. The moneys that you are referring 

to, were those donations that were disclosed, fully disclosed? 

Senator INHOFE. Oh, yes, I believe they were. 

Senator CARPER. Then that does not sound like dark money to 

me. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. 

On the last question that Mr. Pruitt concerning the earthquakes, 

I’d like to make this a part of the record because it will surprise 

you guys that the Oklahoma Corporation Commission has really focused in on this thing and talked about it. This is wastewater in 

disposal wells that we are concerned with. They clamped down on 

it, and you are exactly right in your response to the question except 

you didn’t go far enough. In 2016 they actually reduced the earthquakes by 31 percent. 

So we are doing, in the State of Oklahoma, something that we 

have been complimented about, the fact we are taking these actions. I’d like to make this a part of the record. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
281 

Responding to Sanders: Earthquakes 

• Sen. Sanders said fl-acking is the cause of Oklahoma's earthquakes. This is 

not true. 

• The Oklahoma Corporation Commission and Oklahoma Geological 

Survey has said the focus of recent heightened seismic activity has been 

surround the use of wastewater disposal ~ell~ 

• When the Commission came to this conclusion using available data and 

research, they moved to put caps on disposal well activity. As a result, 

Oklahoma as reduced eartbq.uakcs..Qy_31% in 2016 from the previous 

trend, and researChers and experts say they expect this trend will continue. 

• Oklahoma Corporation Commission's Chair-elect Dana Murphy told CNN 

that "industry compliance" with their directives "has thus far been 

outstanding, and there has been no need to request assistance from the 

attorney general." 

• Isn't that the goal here? For industry to quickly respond to state efforts, to 

be in compliance and not put up a fight when public health is of concern? 

Furthermore, when an earthquake took place near Osage County, which is 

EPA-managed land, EPA turned to the state of Oklahoma on how to 

handle disposal wells in Osage county. And they followed Oklahoma's 

advice 

• We are clearly doing something right. Mr. Pruitt, do you have a role 

on seismicity as Attorney General? 

• Do you think the state is taking appropriate action? 
282 

Senator INHOFE. The other thing I want to bring out, and I have 

done this before, but I wasn’t going to do it until people kept talking about the science is settled, the science is settled, the science 

is settled. I know people want to believe that. 

I remember so well—every year the U.N. has a big party, and 

they invite everyone to come in. I was going to go to Copenhagen 

to be the one-man truth squad which I did and went over there. 

But during that time, right before I left, I asked the Administrator 

of the EPA—the job I believe you are going to have—Lisa Jackson, 

I said I have a feeling once I leave town you are going to come up 

with an endangerment finding, and you are going to give your justification for getting involved in this issue. She smiled so I could 

tell it was true. I said, when you do this, it has to be based on 

science. Tell me the science that you are going to use for this. She 

said, well, the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. 

Now, as luck would have it—my luck and not theirs—right after 

that is when ClimateGate came. That’s when it was disclosed that 

the individuals, the scientists in IPCC rigged the numbers and 

came up with such an outrageous lie in terms of what causes global 

warming, all of that. I will just read a couple of them. One of the 

physicists in the IPCC said ‘‘ClimateGate was a fraud on a scale 

I have never seen before.’’ Clive Cooke with the Financial Times 

said ‘‘The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science is 

surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.’’ The U.K. Telegraph—that is one of the largest publications in the UK—said, ‘‘It’s the worse scientific scandal of our generation.’’ Nobody talks about that but that is the science they are 

talking about. I really believe it is necessary to have that as a part 

of this record of this meeting. 

General Pruitt, in 2012, the EPA and the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration issued updated fuel economy standards that were result of a compromise. That compromise was between the Obama administration, the automakers, and the State of 

California. Part of this deal required a review of these regulations 

in 2018 before—these are their words and not mine—any new 

standards were put in place. After losing the election, however, the 

Obama administration broke the deal by prematurely issuing new 

regulations. This decision was made unexpectedly and well over a 

year before the EPA said they would make the determination. This 

shortened the timeframe and process, and this is concerning. 

Mr. Chairman, I do ask unanimous consent that the previous 

EPA timeline for the expected action on the midterm review be included in the record. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
283 

Bliii!Jl'J! !17 1 

Cl) 

-::::: 

"0 

Q; 

--

v 

!./": 

LJ.J 

l-

::E 

,.. 

~~<t 

0"' f"i ~·1 

,., 

" >-

"' "5 0 ... -., 

"' " Q 

N 

~~ 0 

f"·;ll 

IIIIIIU.U ii!IIBIIII 11111•111 111!11111111 
284 

Senator INHOFE. Attorney General Pruitt, as Administrator, will 

you look into this matter to see whether this extreme action was 

appropriate or a hasty political decision? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, as you indicated, the obligation was to meet 

the November 2018 midterm review. I think the study that was 

completed was finished December 30, and they issued their findings within 14 days. That time period is something I am not sure 

normally happens as far as the time, the velocity of 14 days, but 

it merits review. I would review that, yes. 

Senator INHOFE. The follow up question would be, would you 

commit to sitting down with the Transportation Secretary, Elaine 

Chao? I have already talked to her about this, incidentally. Both 

will be confirmed, I am convinced, and you are working to address 

the impacts of the EPA’s decision on automobile manufacturers and 

consumers. Will you work with her on that issue? 

Mr. PRUITT. Absolutely. 

Senator INHOFE. Very good. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Pruitt. I want to jump into one of the areas that 

you said is a principal part of one of your achievements. In your 

opening statement, you said that as Attorney General you were 

confronted with an important water quality issue on the scenic Illinois River, the high phosphorus levels that were causing a range 

of problems that come from the manure principally from farm animals. You go on to state that this was a historic agreement to clean 

up the river. It was in your opening statement and a number of 

the other documents that you provided. 

You also described the agreement with Arkansas as an important 

agreement to reduce the pollution again that was the result from 

poultry growers that was ‘‘occurring as a result of pollution from 

poultry growers.’’ Are you familiar with this? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, also discharge from municipalities in northwest 

Arkansas as well. 

Senator BOOKER. I think that is an important point, yes. I would 

like to ask you some questions about this, but I think it is important. I really dug into this and did some research. I want to go 

through with my colleagues what the fact pattern is that led to this 

moment where you intervened. 

It really starts with a Supreme Court decision way back in 1992, 

Arkansas v. Oklahoma. I imagine you are familiar with this Supreme Court decision that resolved the lawsuit between these two 

States that held that basically upriver States, such as Arkansas, 

must comply with water quality standards adopted by downriver 

States and then approved by the EPA. You are familiar with that? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am familiar with the litigation, yes. 

Senator BOOKER. After that Supreme Court decision effective 

July 1, 2002, Oklahoma actually did adopt a .037 water quality 

standard for phosphorus. Importantly, they gave a decade, 10-year 

phase-in period before full compliance was required. Then in 2003 

your predecessor, Drew Edmondson, negotiated an agreement with 

Arkansas, which I have read, called the Statement of Joint Prin-
285 

ciples and Actions. Mr. Chairman, I’d like to enter that into the 

record. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
286 

STATEMENT OF JOINT PRINCIPLES AND ACTIONS 

WHEREAS the States of Arkan5a• and Oklahoma share a number of streams and rivers 

that flow from Arkansas into Oklahoma, six (6) of which are designated as Scenic River5 in the 

State of Oklahoma; 

WHEREAS the States of Arkansa.s and Oklahoma share a comn'IOn goal of improving 

water quality within the States' shm-ed watersheds; 

WHEREAS the States of Arkansas and Oklahoma agree that excl!$S nuttient5 from point 

and non-point sources can result in nutrient surplus for phosphorus and nitrogen; 

WHEREAS cxceS$ phosphorus in watersheds is known to degrade water quality and 

threaten aquatic life; 

WHEREAS Arkansas and Okluhoma agree that reducing the amount of phosphorus 

present in the States' shared waten;heds will further the States' shared goal of improving water 

quality; 

WHEREAS, in an effort to reduce the amount of phosphorus present in its Scenic Riven;, 

the Stale of Oklahoma ha.s passed, und submitted to the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency for approval under Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act, a total phosphorus criterion of 

.037 mgll tor its sill (6) Scenic Rivers, modified by an implementation schedule that allows 

dischargers to undenake interim actions designed to improve water quality in the Scenic Rivers 

consistent with achieving compliance with the State ofOkluhoma's .037 mgtl criterion for 

phosphorus, by 2012; 

WHEREAS, Arkansas has steadfastly insisltll.l and maintains that the .037 mgll criterion 

for total phosphorus is neither attainable nor appropriate; 

WHEREAS. Arkansas and Oklahoma agree that individual but coordinated strategies to 

meet Water quality goals is in the best interest of both Stales; 

The States of Arkansa.s and Oklahoma, acting through their environmentalugencies, 

including, but not limited to, the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, the Arkansas 

Soil and Water Con.5ervation Commission, the Oklahoma Secretary of Environment, the 

Oklahoma Water Resources Board, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and the 

Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission, arc working together to reduce phosphorus in the shared 

Scenic Rivers Watershed~. Tn furtherance of that goo!, the States of Arkansas and Oklahoma, 

acting through their environmental agencies, enter into this Statement of Joint Principl& and 

Actions. 
287 

STATEMENT OF JOI:"JT PRINCIPLES AND ACTIONS 

ARKANSAS LEQTSLAUON 

PAGEl 

In fwtherance of the State.;' shared phosphoros reduction goals. the Arkansas General 

Assembly enacted significnnrleglslotion to improve the States' shored watersheds. Consequently, 

the Arkansas Soil and Water Consc1vation Commission is committed to developing regulations to 

implement the following recently passed Ark&nSIIS legislation: 

Acl 1059 of2003, requiring the Arkansa:; Soil and Water Conservation 

Commission to develop and implement programs to certify the minimal 

competence and knowledge of persons preparing nutrient management 

plans and of person~ milking nutrient application, including the proper 

utilization of litter. 

Act 1060 of 2003, requiring Lhe Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation 

Commission to operute an annual registration program to assemble and 

mainroin infoTlTJation on the number, composition, and practices of poultry 

feeding operations in the stale, including the land application practices used 

by each individual poultry feeding operation, as well aa the amount of litter 

stored, applied and transfeiTCd by each operation, and 

Act 1061 of 2003, declaring certain areas, incluuing Lhe illinois River 

Watershed, to be nutrient surplus areas for phosphorus and nitrogen, and 

making it a violation of State law to apply de.~ignated nutrients within a 

nutrient surplus area except in compliance with a nutrient managc:ment plan 

approved by the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission or at a 

protective rate established by Arkansas Soillllld Water Conservation 

Commission, 

UTIER &EMOV AUREUSE TECHNJQUES 

The States of Arkansas and Oklahoma. acting through their environmental agencies, will 

joiTJt!y p~ue funding, including federal granb or other federal funding, for vtuious litter removal 

and reuse techniques, such as: 

the development of a litter bank; 

burning litter for energy; 

the u:1e of biological treatment (e.g. the Stamper Project); 

pclletization to produce a marketable fetlili~r product: and 
288 

STA TF.MENT OF JOINT PRINCIPLES AND ACTIONS PAGE3 

transportation of excess liller from the aff~::eted watersheds. 

JOINT PHOSPliORUS INDEX 

The States of Arkansa,; and Oklahoma, acting through their environmental agencie~, are 

working to~;cthcr toward development of a Joint Phosphorus Index by August 2004. The States 

will cun~iuer utilization of the Joint Phosphorus lnde1t for the development of Nutrient 

Management Plans. 

DATA COll.ECTION 

Although infonnation collected ptlrstlant to Act 1060 of the 2003 Arkansu General 

Assembly, quantifying the o.mount of litter stored. applied and transferred by individual poullry 

feeding operations is made confidential under the statute, the Arkansas Soil and Water 

ConsCI"IIntion Commission will prepare detlliled compilation5 and summaries of this information 

and make these compilations and summ.uies available upon request to the public, the Oklahoma 

Environmental Agencies and EPA . 

The ArkansHs Soil and Water Conservation Commission will work with Oklahoma in 

determining the format for these compilations and summaries (e.g., information by county, 

geographic area or watershed). as well as the amount of detail necessary to add~s Oklahoma's 

reasonable concern$. Similarly, Oklahoma will work with Arkansas to provide comparable 

information for poultry operations in Okluhoma. 

WATERSHEP MONiTORING 

The States of ArkariSIUl and Oklahoma, acting through their environmental agencies, will 

coordinate monitoring in partnership with the Arkansas/Oklahoma Arkansas River Compact 

Commission throughout the shared Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Watersheds based on u common 

protocol and will share all infom,ntion/data 1'esulting fmm such monitoring. The States will hold 

discussions ;~imed at arriving UL the agreed upon monitoring protocol by August 2004. 

The States will submit the agreed upon design to EPA for review and endorsement. 

EPA has committed to seek to obtain federal funding for the agreed upon monitoring 

REOPIID'ER fROVISIQN 

Oklahoma perio<iically reevaluates all of its water quality standards. In particular, 
289 

STATEMENT OF JOINT PRINCIPLES AND ACTIONS PAGE4 

Oklahoma will re!lviiluate Oklahomll's .037 mgn criterion for total phosphorus in Oklahoma's 

Scenic Rivers by 2012, based on the best scjentific: information available at that time, 1111d with the 

full, timely inclu:sion of officials from the Stale of Arl:anaas representing both point and non point 

source dischargers. 

CQNfROLS ON L~GER ENTITIES 

The Stares of Arkansa.~ and Oklahoma, acting through their environmental agencie:s, 

understand that point source dischargers will need time to achieve water quality improvements in 

the affected watenheds consistent wi1h Oklahoma's ctiterion for total phosphorus. Therefore, the 

States. acting through their environmental agencies, will issue to the point source dischargen! to 

the shared Oklahoma Scenic Rivet·s Watersheds with a design capacity of greater than 1 MOD, 

spcctfically the Cities of Fayetteville, Rogers, Springdale, Siloam Spring~ and Bentonville, 

Arkansas, National Pollutant Di&charge l:ilimination System (''NPDES") permits reflecting an 

efnuent limit for total phollphorus of l mgll (30 day average) pursuant to the implementation 

schedule set out below. The City of Tahlequah, Oklo.homa received an NPDES permit issued in 

1992 requil'ing it to mut a total phosphorus ernuentlimit of 1 mg/1. 

The States of Arkansas and Oklahoma, acting through their envirorunental ngencies, will 

reissue the above-spccifitld cities' NPDES permits on a normal five (:5) year reissunnce cycle, with 

the understanding that NPDES permits for these point source dischargers to the shared Oklahoma 

Scenic River" Wutersheds issued in the year 2012 or beyond must include phosphorus limits 

stringent enough to meet applicable water quality standards. 

Schedule for Large Cities 

Rogers to meet 1 mg/1 limit starting in 2004 

Springdale- expansion to meet l mglllimit staning in 2007 

Siloam Springs- expansion to meet I mg/1 limit starting in 2009 

Fayetteville- exi~ling facility already complies; new facility to meet 1 mg/llimit once 

operational (circa 2005) 

Bentonville- new facility to meet 1 mg/1 imit once operational (date unknown) . . , 

CONIROLS ON SMA! I BR EN1TIJES 

Th6 State of Arkansas, acting through its environmental agencies, will work 

aggressively throughout the implementation period with those e11isting Arkansas 

entities with design capacities of less than I MGD but greater thnn or equal to . .5 MGD 

to reduce the level of phosphoru5 in their discharges to the maximum extent possible 

through voluntat-y controls aimed at reaching either I mg/1 total phosphorus or a 

phosphorus loading limit based on 1 MGD x I mg/1 by the year 2012. The City of 
290 

STATEMENT OF JOINT PRINCIPI,ES AND ACTIONS PAGE5 

Westville, Oklahoma is cwrently under a compliance order to meet a 1 mgt! limit 

withm two (2) years. 

NOTE: The States of Arhn~us and Oklahoma, acting through their cnviromnental 

agencies, understand that the above described controls do not apply to facilities, 

such as cooling w;~ter intake facilities, whose discharges do not contribute 

phosphorus to the recci ving stream, so long as those facilities discharges do not 

conlilin increased concentrations of phosphorus. 

WATERSHED PLAN 

The States of Arkonsa.~ and Oklahoma, acting through their environmental 

agencies, will work together in prutncrship with the Arkansas-Oklahoma Arkansas 

River Compuct Commission toward the goal of producing a Watershed Plan. 

NOTE: EPA's Clean Wuter Act Section 319 gui&nce sets out nine (9) elements 

for a Watershed Plan. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The parties understand that this document is not intended to create, diminish or 

waive any legHl rights or obligations runong the pllrtit:li o£ uny other person or entity 

not a party to this document, including individual funners. Nothing in this document 

creates any right• of ciluses of action for any person. whether party to this document or 

not. 

The parties recognize that a request by Okluho.ma for more stringent NPDES 

permit concentration limits than those set out in this document, or a challenge by 

Arkansas lo Oklahoma's phosphorus standard, would terminate this document. If a 

third party brings a lawsuit inconsistent with the terms of this document, both parties 

will indicate to the Court their support for the te=~ of this document. 

EPA has told the parries this document represents a very positive step by the 

States, acting through their environmental agencies. toward improving water quality in 

the shared Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Watersheds, which is consistent with achieving 

compliance with the State of Oklahoma's .037 mgfl criterion for total phosphorus in 

the State's Scenic R.ivers. 

The States of Arkansas and Oklahoma. acting through their environmental 

agencies, understand that as parties to this document, they intend to respect and follow 

the commitments made herein, and tllat so long as all commitments made herein are 
291 

S"fATEMENT OF JOINT PRL'fCIPLES AND ACTIONS PAGE6 

rnet, the pru:ties wJll continue to seek progress under this document Iowan.! achieving 

improvements in water quality. _ 
292 

PAG£7 

--
293 

~. ~P."E. ~ 

tl eDl 

AtbnJa Soil&: Wzrtcr<:.•on.wvatlon Commihion 

PAGRI 
294 

STATEMENT OF JOJNTl"RJNCD"LES AND AcnONS 
295 

PAGB18 
296 

STATEMENT OF JOINT PRINCIPLES AND ACTIONS PAGEll 

Ed'llllllid H. Fite, m ·-· Executive~ 

Oklahoma Scealc lUwrs Cq~ 
297 

STATEMENT OF JOINT PRINCIPI,F.S AND ACTIONS PAGE12 

~~w:.Ah~:.~ SLeven A. Thompson 

12-18-~ Date 

Executive Director 

Oklahoma. Department of Environmental Quality 
298 

SECOND STATEMENT OF JOINT PRINCIPLES AND ACTIONS 

WHEREAS, this Second Statement of Joint Principles and Actions {Second Statement), dated this 

20th day of February, 2013, is intended to extend and augment the Statement of Joint Principles and 

Action {First Statement) entered in 2003 among named Arkansas and Oklahoma Environmental 

Agencies, which with the addition of the Oklahoma Conservation Commission and Oklahoma 

Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, are herein after referred to as the "Parties"; and 

WHEREAS, the States of Arkansas and Oklahoma share a common goal of improving water 

quality in the designated Scenic Rivers; 

WHEREAS, in an effort to avoid costly and protracted litigation and administrative proceedings 

which would further strain relationships between the two States and distract from cooperative efforts 

needed to protect and improve water quality in the designated Scenic Rivers, the two States entered into a 

Statement of Joint Principles and Actions in 2003 {the "First Statement"); 

WHEREAS, under the First Statement, both states agreed to undertake interim actions designed 

to improve river clarity and substrate quality in the designated Scenic Rivers and their Watersheds 

including substantial upgrades to wastewater treatment plants and the development and implementation of 

regulations restricting the use of nutrients to fertilize lands within the Scenic River Watersheds lands; 

WHEREAS, Oklahoma agreed in the First Agreement to re-evaluate, by 2012, the 0.037 mg!L 

Numeric Phosphorus Criterion based on the best scientific information available. 

WHEREAS, the two States believe it is in their best interests to continue to work cooperatively to 

protect and improve water quality in the designated Scenic Rivers and to avoid costly and protracted 

litigation and administrative proceedings which would further strain relationships between the two States 

and distract from those cooperative efforts. 

NOW THEREFORE, the Parties enter into this Second Statement of Joint Principles and Actions. 

THREE YEAR EXTENSION OF COMMITMENTS 

For a period of three years commencing February 20, 2013 and ending February 20, 2016 {the 

"Term"), the Parties make the following commitments: 

The States, through the appropriate Parties, will continue to require existing point source 

dischargers to the Illinois River Watershed with a design capacity of greater than 1 MGD to operate under 

existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System {"NPDES") permits reflecting an effluent limit 

for total phosphorus of not more than lmg!L based upon a 30 day average, assuming the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency does not object. Oklahoma's law prohibits increased loading from 

existing dischargers and the permitting of new dischargers in Oklahoma into its Scenic River watersheds; 

existing dischargers may expand and new dischargers may be permitted in Arkansas provided that the 

cumulative permitted loading of phosphorus (in pounds per day) in the watersheds of any of the six 

Scenic Rivers will not be increased during the Term of this Second Statement. 

The States, through the appropriate Parties, will continue implementation and enforcement of 

regulations governing the use of nutrients to fertilize lands within the designated Scenic River 

Watersheds. Subject to the limitations of the Parties to bind their respective legislatures, the Parties shall 

not seek to modifY current law or regulations governing the use of nutrients to fertilize lands unless the 

liP age 
299 

requested modification is at least as restrictive as current law applicable to that State's respective portion 

of the designated Scenic River Watersheds. To the extent funding is available, the Parties agree to 

maintain inspectors and nutrient management plan writers for their respective nutrient management 

regulatory programs for the designated Scenic River Watersheds equal to, if not greater than, current 

agency staffing levels. 

Although information collected pursuant to Act 1060 of the 2003 Arkansas General Assembly, 

quantifYing the amount of poultry litter stored, applied and transferred by individual poultry feeding 

operations is made confidential under the statute, the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission will 

prepare detailed compilations and summaries of this information and make these compilations and 

summaries available on at least an annual basis to Oklahoma environmental agencies and EPA. The 

Arkansas Natural Resources Commission will work with appropriate Oklahoma Parties in determining 

the format for these compilations and summaries (e.g., information by county, geographic area or 

watershed), as well as the antount of detail necessary to address reasonable concerns by Oklahoma 

Parties. Similarly, Oklahoma Parties will work with Arkansas Parties to provide comparable information 

for poultry operations in Oklahoma. 

JOINT PHOSPHORUS CRITERIA STUDY 

COST OF JOINT STUDY-- The Arkansas Parties agree to use best efforts to secure appropriate 

funding in the amount of Six Hundred Thousand dollars ($600,000) to complete a three-year water quality 

study of the designated Scenic Rivers and their watersheds.(the "Joint Study"). Although the Arkansas 

Parties agree to use best efforts to secure the funding for the Joint Study, the willingness of the State of 

Arkansas to fund the Joint Study is not, and shall not be, construed by any signatory to this document as a 

legal obligation of the State of Arkansas. Although the Arkansas Parties have explored some options and 

believe currently that a sufficient source of funds is available to undertake the Joint Study, the Arkansas 

Parties may also pursue state, federal and private grants which may be available to fully or partially 

satisfY the willingness of the Arkansas Parties to undertake the task of finding the funding for the Joint 

Study under this Second Statement. Failure to secure the funding necessary to complete the Joint Study 

within the Term of this Second Statement shall provide just cause for termination of the Second 

Statement. 

The funds collected to pay for the Joint Study will be placed in the Arkansas-Oklahoma Arkansas 

River Compact Commission (''CC''). The CC will act solely as a repository for the funds and will 

disperse the funds at the direction of the Joint Study Committee. 

MANDA TORY STUDY COMPONENTS -- The primary purpose of the Joint Study is to 

determine the Total Phosphorous threshold response level, in milligrams per liter (mg!L ), at which any 

statistically significant shift occurs in algal species composition or algal biomass production resulting in 

undesirable aesthetic or water quality conditions in the Designated Scenic Rivers. The Joint Study shall be 

completed in accordance with U.S. EPA Rapid Bio-assessment Protocols, incorporate quality assurance 

and control provisions consistent with EPA Guidance on Quality Assurance and Quality Control, and 

follow EPA's most recent guidance "Using Stressor-response Relationships to Derive Numeric Nutrient 

Criteria" (EPA 820-S-10-001, November 2010). The Joint Study shall include a sampling population that 

is adequate to determine the frequency and duration component of the numeric criterion. To the extent 

data from reference streantS or sites is incorporated into the Joint Study, reference streams or sites shall, 

to the fullest extent possible, be limited to streams or rivers within the same EPA eco-region and 

comparable to the streams in the designated Scenic River watersheds in terms of stream order and 

watershed land uses. 

21Page 
300 

JOINT STUDY COMMITTEE- The Joint Study will be funded by Arkansas and managed by a 

committee of six (6) individuals - 3 appointed by the Governor of the State of Oklahoma, 3 appointed by 

the Governor of the State of Arkansas (the "Joint Study Committee"). Each representative shall be 

qualified to design and conduct water quality studies. This committee will be authorized to select 

qualified scientific professionals to conduct the Joint Study and to formulate the specific scope of work 

for the Joint Study. The qualified scientific professionals selected or any professionals hired by the Joint 

Study Committee shall not reside in, nor have their principal place of business in, the States of Arkansas 

or Oklahoma. The Joint Study Committee members will be entitled to solicit input from stakeholders on 

aspects of the Joint Study such as proposed scopes of work, study protocols, sampling plans, candidate 

reference streams or sites and the selection of water quality indicators for the purpose of minimizing or 

avoiding future disputes about the methods and findings of the Joint Study. The Joint Study Committee 

will establish a reasonable schedule of project deliverables including at least two (2) interim written 

reports and at least one public meeting each year with stakeholders to provide a measure of transparency 

and public comment opportunities during the completion of the Joint Study. The final report and all data 

collected or reviewed during the Joint Study shall be made publicly available. 

Failure of the Joint Study Committee to reach agreement on the procurement, execution or 

conduct of the Joint Study within the Term of this Second Statement shaJI provide just cause for 

termination of the Second Statement 

USE OF STUDY FINDLNGS AND RESULTS - The final report will provide an objective 

analysis of the water quality data and identifY relationships, if any, between various concentrations of 

phosphorus in the designated Scenic Rivers and multiple ecological response levels commonly used in the 

scientific community to describe undesirable aesthetic and water quality conditions. The committee and 

the scientific professionals employed to complete the Joint Study will be asked to make specific 

recommendations as to what phosphorus levels, and what frequency and duration components of measure, 

are necessary to protect the aesthetics beneficial use and scenic river (Outstanding Resource Water) 

designations assigned to the designated Scenic Rivers, and based on overall stream health which shall 

include evaluating the relationship, if any, between phosphorous concentrations in the designated Scenic 

Rivers and biotic indicators of water quality, including primarily algal taxonomic composition and 

periphyton biomass. The purpose of the Joint Study is to provide reliable and objective data and analysis 

that will then form the basis for the Parties and EPA to make informed decisions about the scientific merit 

of any proposed revisions to the phosphorus criterion for the designated Scenic Rivers. 

The Parties recognize that Oklahoma's total phosphorus criterion of 0.037 mg/L was adopted by 

Oklahoma to protect its designated Scenic Rivers' "aesthetic beneficial uses." Oklahoma's Water Quality 

Standards state the phosphorus criterion applies to protect the aesthetic use of the Scenic Rivers. OAC 

785:45-5-19(c). Under the federal Clean Water Act, Arkansas has no aesthetic designated use for any 

waters of the state. Therefore, this Joint Study designed to help identifY the phosphorus levels necessary 

to protect the aesthetic beneficial use of Oklahoma's designated Scenic Rivers shall not be binding upon 

or applicable to any study to develop nutrient criteria necessary to protect aquatic life or fish communities 

within any waters of the State of Arkansas. 

The States of Arkansas and Oklahoma, acting through their respective Parties, agree to be bound 

by the findings of the Joint Study. Oklahoma, through the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, agrees to 

promulgate any new Numeric Phosphorus Criterion, subject to applicable Oklahoma statutes, rules and 

regulations if significantly different than the current 0.037 mg/L standard. "Significantly different" 

means the new Numeric Phosphorous Criterion exceeds -.010 or +.010 than the current .037 criterion. If 

the new Numeric Phosphorous Criterion is at or between .027 and .04 7, then the State of Oklahoma is not 

required to promulgate the new criterion in its water quality standards. Arkansas agrees to be bound by 

and to fully comply with the Numeric Phosphorous Criterion at the Arkansas-Oklahoma State line, 

3IPage 
301 

whether the existing 0.037 mg!L standard is confirmed or a new Numeric Phosphorus Criterion is 

promulgated. Parties for the States of Arkansas and Oklahoma shall forego any legal or administrative 

challenges to the Joint Study. 

SUSPENSION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES AND COVENANT NOT TO SUE 

In consideration of the commitments by each Party to cooperate in completing the Joint Study, 

the Parties agree to the following terms which are intended to avoid costly and distracting legal 

proceedings while preserving all Parties' legal rights. 

Oklahoma, through the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, will propose a rule amendment that 

removes the date to achieve full compliance with the Numeric Phosphorus Criterion set forth in 

Oklahoma Administrative Code 785:45-5-19 and 785:45-5-25{ d), provided that such rule amendment will 

have to be promulgated pursuant to law. Parties for both States will continue cooperative efforts to 

improve and protect water quality in the Scenic Rivers, and Parties for both States covenant and agree 

during the Term of this Second Statement not to institute or maintain administrative enforcement actions, 

judicial proceedings or to take regulatory actions contrary to this Second Statement 

The Parties reserve any and all rights, claims or causes of action that presently exist or which may 

arise during the Term of this Second Statement related to the First Statement, the Numeric Phosphorus 

Criterion and the TMDL (the "Tolled Claims") but covenant and agree not to initiate legal or 

administrative proceedings against any other Party to this Agreement related to the Tolled Claims. 

The Term of this Second Statement shall not be included in computing the running of any statute 

of limitations potentially applicable to any action brought by a Party to this Second Statement relating to 

the Tolled Claims. Any defense of laches, estoppel, waiver or other similar equitable defense to the 

Tolled Claims based on the running or expiration of any time period shall not include the Term of this 

Second Statement. The foregoing tolling agreement does not constitute any admission or 

acknowledgement of any fact, conclusion oflaw, or liability by any Party to this Second Statement. Nor 

does the foregoing tolling agreement constitute any admission or acknowledgement by any Party that any 

statute of limitations, or similar defense concerning the timeliness of commencing a legal or 

administrative action, is applicable to the Tolled Claims. The Parties reserve the right to assert that no 

statute of limitations applies to any of the Tolled Claims and that no other defense based upon the 

timeliness of commencing a legal or administrative action is applicable. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Nothing in this Second Statement creates any rights or causes of action for any person who is not 

a Party to this Second Statement. 

This Second Statement is not intended to affect any claims by or against a third party. However, 

if a third party initiates a legal or administrative proceeding related to water quality in the designated 

Scenic Rivers which is inconsistent with the terms of this Second Statement, the Parties shall take 

necessary steps to indicate to the Court their support for this document. 

This Second Statement is effective upon execution by the Parties and without the requirement of 

filing with any Court and may be signed in counterparts. 

This Second Statement, together with any provisions of the First Statement not superseded herein, 

contains the entire understanding between the Parties, and no statement, promise, or inducement made by 

41Page 
302 

any Party that is not set forth in this Second Statement, together with any provisions of the First Statement 

not superseded herein, shall be valid or binding, nor shall it be used in construing the terms of this Second 

Statement. 
303 

Teresa Marks 

Director 

Arkansas Department ofEnvironmerrtal Quality 

Arkansas Natural Resoui'Ce$Commis!lion 
304 

Teresa Marks 

Director 

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

J. Randy Young, P.E. 

Director 

Arkansas Natural Resources Commission 

J.D. Stro g Executiv Di' _ _,.,_ ____ _ 

Oklaho Water Resources Board 

~t.~~~ Steven A. Thompson 

Executive Director 

0 oma Department of Environmental Quality 

6jPage 

Date 

Date 

'kh.12-, wr3 

Date 

f.J,. 16'1 zo t3 

Date 

:it~~ '20/ 3 

Date I 
305 

It is my opinion that approval of this Second Statement is within the authority of the Oklahoma off"~eials 

~;d Yz.Lz,,y E. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General of Oklahoma 

It is my opinion that approval of this Second Statement is within the authority of the Arkansas officials 

and agencies executing the same. 

2-11-11 

Date 
306 

Senator BOOKER. In 2003, to give more teeth to this—this goes 

to what you were saying about municipalities—it created phosphorus limits for municipal discharges. That 2003 agreement that 

I have also read through also states that Oklahoma will reevaluate 

the .037 criteria for total phosphorus in Oklahoma’s rivers by 2012. 

Then—this is the big part—in accordance with the instructions, 

the mandates of the Supreme Court, the EPA gave its approval to 

Oklahoma’s .037 phosphorus standard. This was critical because 

under the Supreme Court decision, now Oklahoma had a water 

quality standard approved by the EPA that was now enforceable 

against up-States like Arkansas. 

Let’s fast forward to April 2012. Oklahoma’s Water Resources 

Board reviewed the best scientific information available in 2012. It 

reevaluated and reaffirmed the .037 phosphorus standard. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to put in an executive summary of that 

review. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
307 

Final Report 
308 

Final Report 

Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Phosphorus Criteria Review- Majority Report 

Executive Summary 

As required in the 2003 Statement of Joint Principles and Actions agreement, in concert with an 

EPA grant, as well as Oklahoma's continual review of the Oklahoma Water Quality Standards 

(OWQS), staff of the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) convened an 

interstate/tribal/EPA technical advisory group (TAG). The objective of this TAG was to reevaluate, by 2012, the 0.037 mg/L total phosphorus (TP) criterion assigned to all of Oklahoma's 

Scenic Rivers. This review process involved state agency staff from both Oklahoma and 

Arkansas representing WQS staff, point and nonpoint source control staff, US EPA Region 6 

staff, and the Cherokee Nation. During 2011, all submitted information and over 100 specific 

technical publications were reviewed (Appendix A), and 10 of those were determined to 

constitute "best scientific information available" by the TAG for purposes of the criterion 

review effort. After several face to face meetings and conference calls of this group, no 

consensus was reached on the recommendations. The majority of the TAG concluded that the 

best scientific information currently available supports the current criterion; therefore, no 

change in the criterion is necessary. It further recommends that an additional study 

documenting chemical, physical and biological integrity should occur to guide future water 

quality management of these waters. The Arkansas members of the TAG have prepared a 

separate report titled "Arkansas TAG Members' Minority Report to OWRB," which is being 

submitted as a separate document. 
309 

Introduction 

The Oklahoma Legislature resolved to protect a handful of treasured streams when, in 1970, it 

passed the "Scenic Rivers Act" {82 O.S. 1451-1471) as a means to identify and preserve the 

unique characteristics and uses of the state's most scenic streams. This same legislation 

identified four streams to be designated as "Scenic River Areas": Flint Creek, Illinois River, 

Barren Fork Creek, and Upper Mountain Fork River. In 1975, the Legislature added Lee Creek 

and Little Lee Creek {Figure 1). The primary purpose of the Scenic Rivers Act, and the 

subsequent Water Quality Standards {WQS) regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, is to 

preserve the high quality and unique characteristics of these outstanding resource waters. 

"The Oklahoma Legislature finds that some of the free-flowing streams and rivers of 

Oklahoma possess such unique natural scenic beauty, water conservation, fish, wildlife 

and outdoor recreational values of present and future benefit to the people of the state 

that it is the policy of the Legislature to preserve these areas for the benefit of the people 

of Oklahoma. For this purpose there are hereby designated certain "scenic river areas" to 

be preserved as a part of Oklahoma's diminishing resource of free-flowing rivers and 

streams." 

A body of statu te and rule has been subsequently established to protect Oklahoma's six Scenic 

Rivers. Rules are now in place limiting loading from point sources, placement of septic tanks, 

placement of poultry houses, disposal of poultry waste, and disposal of biosolids. Substantial 

resources have been dedicated to limiting nutrients in the watersheds with Best Management 

Practices {BMP) demonstrations, incentives and education. Antidegradation protection for 

scenic rivers, in place since 1973, adds basis to implement the statutory policy to preserve the 

Scenic Rivers as a part of Oklahoma's diminishing resource of free-flowing rivers and streams. 

In 2001, it was recognized that both empirical and anecdotal evidence over the preceding two 

decades indicated that, Illinois River status as a "Scenic River" pursuant to Title 82 Chapter 21 

of Oklahoma Statute, was seriously threatened by excess nutrients. These nutrients primarily 

phosphorus- were seen to be causing accelerated primary productivity in the Illinois River and 
310 

Figure 1. Map of the six Oklahoma Scenic Rivers and their watersheds. 
311 

Lake Tenkiller, resulting in significant growths of both attached algae (periphyton) and 

suspended algae (phytoplankton). As a consequence, historical river clarity and substrate 

quality were being adversely affected to such an extent that, without intervention, the Illinois 

River's exceptional ecological and recreational significance were in jeopardy. Further reviews 

of the data identified that similar problems with ecological and recreational integrity were also 

present in the other five Scenic Rivers. Although less pronounced and obvious to the public, 

the Barren Fork River, Flint Creek, Lee Creek, Little Lee Creek and the Upper Mountain Fork 

River above Broken Bow Reservoir were all showing signs of adverse impacts from excess 

nutrients. 

To holistically address these problems and protect Oklahoma's six Scenic Rivers, it was 

proposed that a numerical criterion be incorporated into Oklahoma's WQS applicable to total 

phosphorus (TP) for all six Scenic Rivers. While water quality management programs were 

already in place to protect designated beneficial uses, this numerical value should assure that 

water quality greater than that necessary to support beneficial uses is achieved. Based upon 

input received through personal communications and at informal water quality standards 

meetings in late 2001, the general consensus was that Oklahoma's six Scenic Rivers should be 

"better than average." 

OWRB staff investigated statistical techniques appropriate for historical data (Figure 2). EPA's 

July 2000 Nutrient Criteria 

Technical Guidance Manual far 

Rivers and Streams (EPA-822-B00-002) based a substantial 

portion of their recommended 

nutrient criteria on the premise 

that the 25th percentile of 

nutrient concentrations on all 

streams in a given region is roughly 

reference value 

Figure 2. EPA statistical technique for using historical data. From 

equivalent to the 75th percentile of Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and 

Streams (EPA-822-B-00-002) 
312 

concentrations in least impacted or reference quality streams (Figure 3). An analysis of 

nutrient values in relatively un-impacted basins is found in Nutrient Concentrations and Yield in 

Undeveloped Stream Basins a( the United States (Gregory M Clark, David K. Mueller and M. 

Alisa Mast; Journal of the American Water Resources Assaciatian Volume 36, Na. 4 August 

2000). This research was the basis for this comparison as it evaluates TP data on least 

impacted/reference sites. In this report, 75% of the streams assessed in least impacted areas 

had a flow weighted TP concentration of 0.037 mg/l or less. This value was similar to the 

median TP concentration seen in the Barren Fork River and the relatively un-impacted 

Mountain Fork River from Oklahoma's Beneficial Use Monitoring Program (BUMP) (0.045 mg/l 

and 0.028 mg/l, 

Agg.re9ate Nutnen!Ecoreg1or.11 

ECOI'Il'JIOI)ID 

Figure 3. EPA ecoregions and recommended criteria. From Nutrient Criteria Technical 

Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams (EPA-822-B-00-002) 

respectively). It is also consistent with USGS monitoring of the Barren Fork River which resulted 

in a median phosphorus concentration of 0.03 mg/l. The OWRB staff therefore, recommended 
313 

that 0.037 mg/L of TP be promulgated as a numerical criterion to protect our Scenic Rivers. The 

specific rule states: 

"785:45-5-19(c)(2} Nutrients; numerical criterion applicable to waters designated 

Scenic Rivers. The thirty (30) day geometric mean total phosphorus concentration in 

waters designated "Scenic River" in Appendix A of this Chapter shall not exceed 0.037 

mg/L. The criterion stated in this subparagraph applies in addition to, and shall be 

construed so as to be consistent with, any ather provision of this Chapter which may be 

applicable to such waters. Such criterion became effective July 1, 2002 and shall be 

implemented as authorized by state law through Water Quality Standards 

Implementation Plans and other rules, permits, settlement agreements, consent orders, 

compliance orders, compliance schedules or voluntary measures designed to achieve full 

compliance with the criterion in the stream by June 30, 2012". 

Revisions of the Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) must follow the process required 

by the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act. Prior to adoption, a Notice of Rule Making 

Intent was published in the Oklahoma Register that initiated a 45 day comment period. A Rule 

Impact Statement was filed and the formal rule revisions were available for public review. After 

the 45 day comment period, a formal hearing was held. In the process, over 600 comments 

were received supporting the criterion or asking for a more stringent criterion. Sixty Five (65) 

comments were received opposed to the criterion. Subsequent to the public review process, 

OWRB staff recommended that the Board adopt a not-to-be-exceeded 30 day geometric mean 

total phosphorus criterion of 0.037 mg/L for the Scenic Rivers in both the Antidegradation 

section and the Aesthetics beneficial use section of the OWQS. 

Recognizing the impacts and the revolutionary nature of the criterion, the nine-member 

Oklahoma Water Resources Board added the caveat: "such criterion shall be fully implemented 

within ten {10} years as provided in a separate rule promulgated by the Board". The OWRB 

then followed through with its requirement of an additional rule and promulgated an 

emergency rule and a final rule in February 2003. 
314 

A consequence of the criterion is that the discharge of phosphorus to Oklahoma's Scenic Rivers 

must be strictly controlled. The point and nonpoint source phosphorus dischargers of 

northwest Arkansas, in particular, have steadfastly maintained that the 0.037 mg/L for TP is 

neither attainable nor appropriate, and was based upon faulty science. EPA negotiated the 

December 2003, "Statement of Joint Principles and Actions" signed by Oklahoma and Arkansas, 

stating that "Oklahoma periodically re-evaluates all of its water quality standards. In particular, 

Oklahoma will re-evaluate Oklahoma's 0.037 mg/L criterion for total phosphorus in Oklahoma's 

Scenic Rivers by 2012, based on the best scientific information available at that time, and with 

the full, timely inclusion of officials from the State of Arkansas representing both point and 

non point source dischargers." Following this agreement EPA approved the Oklahoma criterion 

on December 29, 2003. 

Prior to its approval, EPA reviewed the TP criterion in light of the USGS study previously 

referenced (Clark et. al.), EPA's national nutrient criteria recommendations, and Ozark 

Highlands ecoregion stream data for TP presented in another USGS report entitled Percentile 

Distributions of Median Nitrite Plus Nitrate os Nitrogen, Toto/ Nitrogen, and Toto/ Phosphorus 

Concentrations in Oklohomo Streams, 1973-2001 (Report 03-4084). Based upon this analysis 

and the record before it, EPA determined that Oklahoma's TP criterion of 0.037 mg/L for its 

Scenic Rivers was "sufficient to protect the designated uses of the affected rivers" (including 

Fish and Wildlife Propagation, Recreation, and Aesthetic beneficial uses). 

Objectives 

The objective of this project was to re-evaluate the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers phosphorus 

criterion to reaffirm its appropriateness or to recommend if a revised phosphorous criterion 

might better serve to restore and protect the integrity of Oklahoma's Scenic Rivers. Because 

the current criterion has three components, including a magnitude (0.037 mg/L), duration (30-

day geometric mean), and frequency (shall not exceed), all three of these components were 

considered as part of the criterion re-evaluation. The process, embodied in the Quality 
315 

Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), facilitated the review of the "best scientific information 

available" utilizing a technical advisory group (TAG) which included appropriate technical staff 

designated by officials from EPA, Cherokee Nation and the States of Oklahoma and Arkansas 

representing both point and non point source dischargers. 

Process and Method of the Re-evaluation 

The Technical Advisory Group (TAG) was assembled to review the relevant "best scientific 

information available" regarding the phosphorus criterion and develop final recommendations 

to OWRB staff regarding whether additional action should be taken to revise the phosphorus 

criterion (See Table 1 for a schedule ofTAG meetings). 

The TAG was comprised of: 

Derek Smithee, Chief of the Water Quality Programs Division of the Oklahoma Water 

Resources Board (Facilitator), 

Shanon Phillips, Director of the Water Quality Division of the Oklahoma Conservation 

Commission, 

Shellie Chard-McCiary, Director of the Water Quality Division of the Oklahoma 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

Quang Ph am of the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, 

Cara Cowan Watts of the Cherokee Nation, 

Melinda McCoy with Region 6 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Ed Swaim. Chief of the Water Resources of the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission, 

Steve Drown, Chief of the Water Division of the Arkansas Department of Environmental 

Quality. 

A Secondary Data Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was prepared, reviewed by the TAG, 

and approved by EPA. The process established in this QAPP addressed: acquisition of scientific 

information relevant to the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers criterion, the process for determining 

which of this information represents the "best scientific information available" for purposes of 

the criterion review effort, and then review of the best scientific information to recommend 

action regarding the criterion. 
316 

"Best Scientific Information Available" was solicited from the public by way of public 

announcements on June lO'h, 2011 utilizing e-mail lists and newspaper publications throughout 

the Oklahoma Scenic River's watersheds. A public meeting was also held on August 11th, 2011 

to allow the general public an opportunity to submit additional scientific information. 

Information was compiled and reviewed by the TAG. Staff of the OWRB compiled summaries of 

the information reviewed and recommendations made by the TAG to advise the OWRB. Based 

on the information from the scientific literature review, the phosphorus criterion was reevaluated. 

Table 1. Timeline of meetings regarding the criteria re-evaluation. 

January 2011 TAG meeting Oklahoma City, OK 

April2011 TAG Conference Call 

May 2011 TAG Meeting Rogers, AR 

August 2011 Public Meeting Tahlequah, OK 

October 2011 TAG Conference Call 

November 2011 TAG Meeting Sallisaw, OK 

February 2012 TAG Conference Call 

Studies Summary 

The following summaries are of relevant scientific studies that were reviewed as part of the reevaluation of the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Phosphorus Criteria. 

Current Total Phosphorus (TP) Values and Trends 

The following three summaries provide a view of the current phosphorus values and trends in 

some of Oklahoma's Scenic Rivers. These research articles show that the TP values in the 

Illinois River watershed have decreased since the implementation of point source controls. This 

research also indicates that while TP values and loading have been reduced, high TP values still 

remain. 
317 

Haggard, B., J. Masoner and C. Becker. 2003. Percentile Distributions of Median Nitrite Plus 

Nitrate as Nitrogen, Total Nitrogen, and Total Phosphorus Concentrations in Oklahoma 

Streams, 1973-2001. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4084. 

Percentile distributions of median nitrite plus nitrate as nitrogen, total nitrogen, and 

total phosphorous concentrations were calculated from 563 sites in Oklahoma and 4 

sites in Arkansas near the Oklahoma and Arkansas border to facilitate development of 

nutrient criteria for Oklahoma streams. The 50th percentiles of median nitrite plus 

nitrate as nitrogen, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus concentrations were greater in 

the Ozark Highland ecoregion and were less in the Ouachita Mountains ecoregion when 

compared to other geographic areas used to group sites. Nitrate as nitrogen and total 

phosphorus concentrations currently (2002) used in the Use Support Assessment 

Protocols for Oklahoma were greater than the 75th percentiles of median nitrite plus 

nitrate as nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations calculated for this report. 

Haggard, B. 2010. Phosphorus Concentrations, Loads, and Sources within the Illinois River 

Drainage Area, Northwest Arkansas, 1997-2008. J. Environ. Qual. 39: pp. 2113-2120. 

This study evaluated (i) annual phosphorus (P) loads at the Illinois River at Arkansas 

Highway 59 from calendar year 1997 through 2008, (ii) the relative contribution of 

effluent P sources to annual riverine P transport, (iii) longitudinal gradients in water 

column P concentrations downstream from several wastewater treatment plant effluent 

discharges, and (iv) changes in monthly P loads over the last decade. The relative 

contribution of P inputs from municipal facilities has decreased from 40% of the annual 

P load at the Illinois River at Arkansas Highway 59 to <15% in recent years. Flow 

adjusted monthly P loads showed two distinct trends over time. Flow-adjusted loads 

significantly increased from 1997 through 2002 and significantly decreased from 2002 

through 2008. The concentrations and transport of P within the Illinois River drainage 

area are significantly decreasing from all the watershed management changes that have 

occurred. 
318 

Haggard, B. 2005. Proceedings Report - 3'd Annual Total Maximum Daily Load Conference. 

Effect of Reduced Effluent Phosphorus Concentrations at the Illinois River, Northwest Arkansas, 

1997-2004. 

Spatial distribution of dissolved P concentrations was evaluated using multiple water 

quality monitoring sites from the Illinois River, South of Siloam Springs upstream to the 

effluent discharges in Mud/Clear Creeks, Osage Creek and Spring Creeks. Dissolved P 

concentrations as great as 10 mg SRP L.1 were observed on one sampling in March 2002 

at Spring Creek, and dissolved P concentrations throughout the IRDA were generally 

several orders of magnitude greater than concentrations which typically limit 

Periphyton growth in streams or that are observed in relatively undeveloped basins. 

Dissolved P concentrations at the Illinois River, South of Siloam Springs, Arkansas, were 

less than the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers TP criterion on one sampling date in Feb 2004, and 

dissolved P concentrations were close to the criterion in April 2004. The results 

observed in summer 2003 and 2004 show some mechanism of internal P loading exists 

in streams draining the IRDA because ambient P concentrations often increase 

downstream through selected stream reaches. Dissolved P concentrations at the Illinois 

River, South of Siloam Springs, Arkansas, were generally around 0.10 SRP L-1 and still 

almost three times greater than the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers TP Criterion. 

Nutrient Thresholds & Distributions 

Nutrient thresholds are one of EPA's recommended ways of developing nutrient criteria. The 

following research summaries relate to nutrient thresholds and distributions from various 

watersheds of various sizes. It is of particular interest to note that while many of these streams 

are geographically different, the distributions and thresholds appear to follow very similar 

patterns. 
319 

Stevenson, et al. 2006. Comparing Effects of Nutrients on Algal Biomass in Streams in Two 

Regions with Different Disturbance Regimes and with Applications for Developing Nutrient 

Criteria. Hydrobiologia 561: pp. 149-165. 

Responses of stream algal biomass to nutrient enrichment were studied in two regions 

where differences in hydrologic variability cause great differences in herbivory 

(Kentucky and Michigan). Many measures of algal biomass and nutrient availability 

were positively correlated in both regions, however the amount of variation explained 

varied with measures of biomass and nutrient concentration and with region. Most 

observed responses in benthic algal biomass occurred in nutrient concentrations 

between 10 and 30 ~g TP /land between 400 and 1000 ~g TN /l. 1 High algal biomasses 

were rare (less than 10% of streams) in both regions, if TP was less than 30 ~g 1·1 and TN 

was less than 1000 ~g r1

• The 30 ~g r1 target was also recognized by Dodds et al. (1998) 

as a concentration that constrained chlorophyll a (chi a) to less than 15 ~g chi a cm·2 in a 

Cladophora dominated stream. Higher probabilities of more extensive Cladophora 

growths were observed with increasing nutrient levels. Thus, 30 ~g TP 1'1 and 1000 ug 

TN r

1 could be considered as targets to prevent a high probability of nuisance accrual of 

Cladophora. 

Stevenson, et al. 2008. Algae-P Relationships, Thresholds, and Frequency Distributions Guide 

Nutrient Criterion Development. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 27(3): pp. 783-799. 

This study used complementary information collected using different conceptual 

approaches to develop recommendations for a stream nutrient criterion based on 

responses of algal assemblages to anthropogenic P enrichment. Benthic algal attributes, 

water chemistry, physical habitat, and human activities in watersheds were measured in 

streams of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands region. Regression models showed that TP 

concentrations were ~10 ~g/l in streams with low levels of human activities in 

watersheds and that TP increased with% agriculture and urban land uses in watersheds. 

1 Total Phosphorus concentration units in the summaries are written as reported in the original research articles. 
320 

The 75th percentile at reference sites was 12 11g TP/L. Thresholds in these responses 

occurred between 10 and 20 11g/L. Multiple lines of evidence indicate that a nutrient 

criterion of 10 to 12 ~/L can be justified for Mid-Atlantic Highlands wadeable streams 

based on reference conditions and benthic algal responses to nutrients. Increases in TP 

from 10 to 30 11g/L were associated with responses of benthic diatom assemblages that 

indicated release from nutrient limitation. Extensive, long-lasting nuisance growths of 

the filamentous green alga, Cladophora that are unaesthetic and a problem for fishing 

and recreational use can be prevented by maintaining an average of 30 ~ TP/L (Dodds 

et al. 1997, Stevenson et al. 2006). On the other hand, higher stressor criteria, such as 

between 30 and 60 11g TP/L, could be interpreted as protective of "fish, shellfish, and 

wildlife" that would correspond to the lower, interim goal of the US Clean Water Act. 

Justus, B.G., et al. 2009. A Comparison of Algal, Macroinvertebrate, and Fish Assemblage 

Indices for Assessing Low-level Nutrient Enrichment in Wadeable Ozark Streams. Ecol. lndicat. 

Seventy-three algal metrics, 62 macroinvertebrate metrics, and 60 fish metrics were 

evaluated for each of the three biotic indices. Biotic metric scores were inversely 

related to nutrients and were generally highest when TN and TP concentrations were 

less than about 0.40 mg/L and about 0.018 mg/L (respectively), but were generally 

lowest when concentrations were higher. These TN and TP concentrations are 

comparable to background concentrations from sites across the United States (Clark et 

al., 2000; Smith et al., 2003; Herlihy and Sifneos, 2008). Other studies have indicated 

that substantial changes in macroinvertebrate assemblage structure (Smith et al., 2007) 

and algal biomass (Stevenson et al., 2006) may occur near these concentrations. The 

algal index had a much stronger relation to low- to moderate-level nutrient enrichment 

than did the macroinvertebrate or fish index but all three indices were negatively 

correlated to nutrient enrichment. 
321 

Smith, A.J. and C.P. Tran. 2010. A Weight-of-Evidence Approach to Define Nutrient Criteria 

Protective of Aquatic Life in Large Rivers. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 29(3): pp. 875-891 (2010) 

Based on percentile analysis (median value of the 75th percentile of the reference sites 

and the 25th percentile of the test sites), numeric nutrient criteria would be: 0.023 mg 

TP/L. Cumulative probability distributions suggested that threshold responses of 

biological community metrics occurred between 0.009 and 0.07 mg TP/L. For site 

clusters based on macroinvertebrate data these values were 0.037 mg TP/L. For clusters 

based on diatom data these were 0.037 mg TP/L. The multiple lines of evidence used 

were percentiles, metrics that yielded significant change points, and cluster analyses. 

Results from metrics established specifically for or directly related to nutrients in the 

water were weighted more heavily than those associated with general pollution or, in 

the case of percentile analysis, had no connection with biological responses. Based on 

the weight-of-evidence approach and results from all 3 methods, the proposed guidance 

values for nutrients in large rivers are 0.03 mg TP/L. These values are similar to those 

derived by others and provide meaningful nutrient endpoints that would be protective 

of aquatic life in large rivers. 

Stressor-Response Studies 

There has been much discussion of the need for stressor-response studies to provide 

information to truly evaluate the current phosphorus criterion. The following summaries 

include a study looking at small rivers and streams in Ohio, wadeable streams in the Cross 

Timbers region of Texas, and a stressor-response study conducted on the Illinois River 

Watershed. It is very important to note that while the King (2009) paper researched streams in 

Texas; these streams share many similarities to Oklahoma's Scenic Rivers. These Texas streams 

have limestone substrates comprised of gravel, cobble, boulder, and bedrock. The Stevenson 

research paper was very worthy of note since it was a stressor-response study that was 

conducted on one of Oklahoma's Scenic Rivers (ie, Illinois River). This study especially looks at 

threshold responses in cover of stream bottoms by filamentous green algae. This particular 
322 

focus of research directly relates to the assigned Aesthetics beneficial use of the Scenic Rivers. 

It is also very interesting to note that these studies correspond well to what Dodds et al. (1997) 

found; that accrual of benthic algae from streams throughout the world, measured as 

chlorophyll a, was saturated at approximately 30 Jlg TP/L. 

Miltner, R.J., A Method and Rationale for Deriving Nutrient Criteria for Small Rivers and Streams 

in Ohio. Environmental Management, January 2010. 

This study describes relationships among primary nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen), 

benthic chlorophyll a concentrations, daily dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations, and 

the condition of macroinvertebrate and fish communities in small rivers and streams in 

Ohio, USA. Clear associations between nutrients, secondary response indicators (i.e., 

benthic chlorophyll and DO), and biological condition were found, and change points 

between the various indicators were identified for use in water quality criteria for 

nutrients in small rivers and streams (<1300 km2). A change point in benthic chlorophyll 

.2 density was detected at an inorganic nitrogen concentration of 0.435 mg/1 (±0.599 

SD), and a total phosphorus (TP) concentration of 0.038 mg/1 (±0.085 SD). 0.078 mg/1 

(i.e., the 90th percentile) approximates an upper limit for the change point. 

King, R.S., et al. 2009. Final Report: Linking Observational and Experimental Approaches for 

the Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria for Wadeable Streams. 

Shifts from periphyton communities comprised of sensitive diatoms, calcareous 

cyanobacteria, and other non-chlorophyll bearing microbes to communities with higher 

chlorophyll content and more filamentous algae was repeatedly demonstrated at 

concentrations of surface-water TP above 20 j.ig/L. Streams with TP > 200-1000 Jlg/L 

likely represent a second tier of degradation, and appear at greater risk for nuisance 

algal growth. However, results from the P dosing experiment suggest that 

concentrations as low as 20 Jlg/L (P04-P) can lead to high levels of Cladophora biomass 

in as little as 28 days. Aquatic macrophyte cover consistently declined in streams with 
323 

TP > 25-50 llg/L. These submersed plants serve as important refugia for juvenile fishes 

and macroinvertebrates, and provide a source of dissolved oxygen during low flows. 

Their decline likely represents a key structural and functional change in these streams 

ecosystems. Minimum dissolved oxygen levels are highly dependent upon an 

interaction between flow and nutrient enrichment. This study suggests that TP levels 

>20-30 j.!g/L, coupled with low flows, will cause detrimental declines in minimum 

dissolved oxygen levels. Based on the weight of evidence from the coupling of the field 

stream study and the experimental stream study suggests that there is a very high 

probability that streams exposed to surface-water TP levels exceeding 20 jlg/L, and 

possibly 15 j.!g/L, will experience a sharp decline in biological integrity, including loss of 

characteristic structure (periphyton and macrophytes), loss of numerous species (algae 

and macroinvertebrates), minimum dissolved oxygen levels unsuitable for supporting 

native fauna during low flows, and increase likelihood of nuisance algal growth that 

limits recreational use of streams. 

Stevenson, R.J., et al., Phosphorus Regulates Stream Injury by Filamentous Green Algae, 

Thresholds, DO, and pH. (manuscript in press- Hydrobiologia 2011) 

Nutrient concentrations, benthic algal biomass, dissolved oxygen, and pH were 

measured in 70 or more streams during spring and summer in the Illinois River 

Watershed (IRW) to determine injury to streams that was related to spreading poultry 

waste on fields. Molar N:P ratios were high and indicated that phosphorus was the 

most likely limiting nutrient. A threshold response in cover of stream bottoms by 

filamentous green algae (FGA): Cladophora, Rhizoclonium, and Oedogonium, during 

spring was observed at 27 1-18 TP /L, with increases from averages of 4 to 36 percent 

cover in streams with TP less than and greater than the TP threshold. Thresholds in 

algal biomass response to nutrients have often been observed close to this TP 

concentration. Filamentous green algae (FGA) cover in minimally disturbed, low P 

streams usually had less than 10 percent FGA cover. When TP was greater than 27 j.!g/L, 

FGA cover averaged 36% cover. 
324 

Table 2. Summary of literature values found to be relevant for this review. 

Literature Reviewed Study Area Concentration ( mg/L) 

Haggard, Masoner & Oklahoma Streams Statistical analysis shows that the 75"' percentile of 

Becker (2005) TP concentrations were greater than the criterion. 

Haggard (2005) Illinois River Drainage Dissolved Pin the Illinois River (South of Siloam 

Area Springs) was generally around 3 times greater than 

the TP criterion 

Stevenson et al (2006) Kentucky and Michigan 0.010-0.030 (responses in benthic algal biomass) 

Stevenson et al (2008) Mid-Atlantic Highlands 0.010- 0.020 (threshold responses occurred) 

0.010- 0.012 (recommended P criterion) 

0.030 (to prevent Caldophora) 

Justus, et al (2009) Wadeable Ozark <0.018 (biotic metric scores were highest) 

Streams 

King (2009) Brazos River Watershed, 0.020 (shifts in periphyton communities) 

Texas 

>0.025- 0.050 (aquatic macrophyte cover declines) 

>0.020- 0.030 (coupled with low flows will cause 

DO declines) 

Haggard (2010) Illinois River Drainage The concentrations and transport of P within the 

Illinois River drainage area are significantly 

decreasing 

Smith and Tran (2010) large Rivers 0.023 (numeric criteria based on percentile analysis) 

0.009 - 0.07 (threshold responses occurred) 

0.037 (based on macroinvertebrate data) 

0.030 {recommended nutrient criteria based on a 

weight-of-evidence approach) 

Miltner (2010) Ohio 0.038 (a change point in benthic chlorophyll a) 

Stevenson, et al (2011) Illinois River Watershed 0.027 (a threshold response in cover of stream 

bottoms by filamentous green algae) 

A spreadsheet was compiled of recommended criteria and ecological change points from the 

literature reviewed by the TAG (Appendix B- Phosphorus Values Assembled from Literature 

Review). The median value of all of these recommendations was 0.036 mg/L and the mode was 

0.020 mg/L. 

The current "best scientific information available" signified that the Oklahoma Scenic River 

Total Phosphorus criterion of 0.037 mg/L is within the range of the current and relevant 

scientific literature. The majority of the new scientific information reviewed indicated 0.037 

mg/L phosphorus is appropriate as a criterion protective of the Aesthetics beneficial use. 
325 

The TAG members from the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Oklahoma Conservation 

Commission, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Oklahoma Department of 

Agriculture Food and Forestry, EPA Region 6, and The Cherokee Nation support the following 

findings. A separate body of findings has been provided by the TAG members from the 

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality and the Arkansas Natural Resources 

Commission which can be found in the report titled "Arkansas TAG Members' Minority Report 

to OWRB." 

Findings of the TAG Majority based upon "Best Scientific Information Available" 

1) After reviewing the "best scientific information available" as of the date of this report, 

no information was found that refuted the criterion. The TAG did not find information 

that the 0.037 mg/L total phosphorus (TP) criterion is outside of the acceptable range of 

the TP concentrations necessary to inhibit or limit algae growth to protect the 

Aesthetics beneficial use of Oklahoma's Scenic Rivers. Limited scientific information 

suggests TP concentration could be up to 0.040 mg/L and still limit algae growth 

sufficiently. Other scientific information suggests that TP concentration should be closer 

to 0.010 mg/L to sufficiently inhibit algae growth to protect the aesthetics of the free 

flowing streams. 

The majority of the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Total Phosphorus Criterion TAG concludes 

that no change in the criterion is necessary due to the fact that the best scientific 

information currently available supports the current criterion. 

2) The TAG finds that the results of monitoring of TP concentration in the water for most 

Scenic Rivers in Oklahoma shows results of greater than 0.037 mg/L. However, the TAG 

also finds that TP concentrations in the water for most Scenic Rivers in Oklahoma has 

decreased by varying degrees after the efforts and progress made by Arkansas and 

Oklahoma environmental agencies and interests to limit TP concentrations in point 

source discharges and with Best Management Practices (BMPs) for nonpoint pollution 

sources in the watersheds of Oklahoma's Scenic Rivers. 
326 

3) The TAG finds that continuing the efforts and progress made by Arkansas and Oklahoma 

environmental agencies and interests to limit TP concentrations in point and nonpoint 

source discharges in the watersheds of Oklahoma's Scenic Rivers, should result in 

continued reduction in TP concentrations in Oklahoma's Scenic Rivers. 

4) The TAG further suggests that a comprehensive monitoring program be implemented to 

further evaluate the efforts and progress made by Arkansas and Oklahoma 

environmental agencies and interests to limit the TP concentrations in point and 

nonpoint source discharges in the watersheds of Oklahoma's Scenic Rivers. 

5) Finally, the TAG concludes that as new scientific information is acquired through the 

suggested comprehensive monitoring program and other monitoring and research 

programs, such information should be considered by Oklahoma and Arkansas in the 

review of their respective Water Quality Standards. 

Further Findings Concerning Duration and Frequency 

The OWRB selected a 30 day geometric mean as the appropriate measure for implementing the 

Scenic Rivers phosphorus criterion despite the fact that the specific criterion reference used in 

part as justification for the criteria was based upon a flow weighted annual mean. After the 30 

day criterion was adopted, the need for an assessment protocol became evident because the 

promise of data suitable for calculation of 30 day geometric means faded with inadequate 

funds for monitoring. In 2004, through an Oklahoma environmental agency working group with 

participation by EPA Region 6 and ADEQ Oklahoma developed and adopted an assessment rule 

that used data collected over 90 days as a proxy for data collected over 30 days, to better 

represent the uptake of nutrients by algae. This assessment rule required a minimum number 

of storm events to be included in the data set and allowed a 25% excursion rate for geometric 

means calculated on a monthly basis. The assessment rule essentially was established to 
327 

balance the adopted criterion, technical information and the practical constraints of data 

collection into a single rule. 

A common complaint against the currently promulgated duration and frequency is the data 

intensive nature of a 30 day geometric mean. EPA assessment staff, based upon settlement of 

the Florida impaired waters rule lawsuits, now requires assessment in strict accord with the 

WQS. 

The latest effort by EPA to promulgate criteria for the State of Florida provides a good starting 

place for this discussion. The stream criteria that EPA promulgated are implemented as an 

annual geometric mean with an allowed excursion of once every 3 years. EPA expressed in 

their justification that: 

"Appropriate duration and frequency components of criteria should be based on how the 

data used to derive the criteria were analyzed and the implications for protecting 

designated uses given the effects of exposure at the specified criterion concentration for 

different periods and recurrence patterns." 

The annual geometric mean and 1 in 3 years allowable excursion rate ostensibly is appropriate 

for protecting the "longer term shifts in biological conditions" in Florida streams. The special 

status of Oklahoma Scenic Rivers dictates that not only "longer term shifts in biologicol 

conditions" must be prevented , but also, short term events of excessive algae growth and 

perturbations of the biota at the algal community level must be prevented as well. The 

Oklahoma criterion with a 30 day averaging period is more appropriate to help prevent these 

short term impacts. 

Oklahoma's 30 day Averaging Period. 

In considering the effects of nutrients, the factors that influence growth of algae must be 

considered. Scouring events from storm flow essentially resets a stream and then the recovery 

rate is partially controlled by the availability of nutrients. Turbidity and canopy cover have 

strong influence on the recovery and the final standing crop. The seasonal presence or absence 

of canopy cover has also been demonstrated to effect algal growth. The accrual time after a 
328 

scouring event can also affect the standing crop. Streams with stable substrate and very stable 

flows can experience substantial growth of filamentous algae even at low nutrient 

concentrations. The presence of macrophytic grazers greatly affects algae re-growth and the 

standing crop in exclusion studies. When protected from grazing fishes and invertebrates, 

cyanobacterial felts are overgrown by turfs of benthic diatoms within 4-10 days (Power et al 

1988). 

It is generally accepted that after a scouring event, maximum standing crop of periphyton is 

reached in around 6-8 weeks. To prevent aesthetic problems, the growth of algae and thus the 

nutrient concentrations in that time period are critical to control. To protect from effects on 

benthic invertebrates, the concentrations of nutrients should be evaluated over a time frame 

that would sustain elevated algal biomass over a full life cycle of the benthic invertebrates. For 

only protecting the invertebrates, assessment with a full year's averaging would be appropriate. 

For protecting fish, the assessment should look for concentrations that sustain elevated algal 

biomass over several years. Longer term averaging periods protective of fish and macroinvertebrates would fail to prevent episodic algal growth. 

Acute effects from elevated algae biomass must also be prevented. Nutrients should be 

evaluated over time frames which would allow accrual of algae to the point where dissolved 

oxygen diurnal swings stress or kill the aquatic community. 

Lavoie, et al. (2008) showed that in mesotrophic rivers, the diatom indices show a response 

after only 2 weeks, and that in eutrophic rivers, the diatoms respond within 5 weeks. Their 

research stated: 

" .... 3. Along a large phosphorus gradient, the /DEC [lndice Diatomees de !'Est du Canada 

(a diatom-based index of integrity)] was highly correlated with averaged water 

chemistry data. Along with in-stream phosphorus gradients, the /DEC integrated 

phosphorus over various periods of time, depending on the trophic status of the site 

studied (Boyer, Nicolet or Ste. Anne river) and variability in nutrient concentration. 

4. In the Ste. Anne River, where nutrient concentrations were low and generally stable, 

an input of phosphorus induced a rapid change in diatom community structure and /DEC 
329 

value within the following week. In the mesotrophic Nicolet River, the observed 

integration period was approximately 2 weeks. Diatom communities in the eutrophic 

Boyer River appeared to be adapted to frequent and significant fluctuations in nutrient 

concentrations. In this system, the /DEC therefore showed a slower response to short 

term fluctuations and integrated nutrient concentrations over a period of 5 weeks." 

In a study where tiles from a degraded river and a relatively pristine river were switched to 

examine the response to higher nutrients and recovery from the same, Lacoursie ', et al. 2011 

found: 

" ... the present study provides strong evidence for an accelerated response of diatoms to 

a degradation (within a week in certain cases) and a slower path to recovery (up to 4 

weeks for the Nicolet Sud-Ouest River)." 

The 30 day averaging period presupposes the availability of daily or weekly data which 

represents the full range of concentrations the algae are exposed to and that the daily 

concentrations are related to the growth rate. No studies have been found determining 

whether the maximum, simple average, geometric mean or median is the best descriptor for 

nutrient data in relation to algae growth. Literature evaluating algal growth generally uses 

arithmetic means or single nutrient values compared to single algal chlorophyll a or AFDM 

values. In establishing the original criterion, a simple 30 day average was proposed. It was 

pointed out by the Oklahoma Dept. of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) that since nutrient data is 

rarely normally distributed, the arithmetic average was inappropriate. OWRB concurred and 

revised the proposed criterion to use a 30 day geometric mean. 

Substantial comment from TAG members has stemmed from the 30 day assessment period. 

Much of this comment is caused from discomfort between the assessment protocol that 

recognizes the paucity of data and the promulgated 30 day geometric mean. While extended 

averaging periods could be justified for protecting macoinvertebrates and fisheries, the bulk of 

the literature shows that maximum biomass of the periphyton accrue in time periods of less 
330 

than 30 days. And it is clear that the 30 day time period would be protective of the Scenic 

Rivers. A strategy to address inadequate data will be discussed in subsequent paragraphs. 

Frequency 

The Oklahoma Scenic Rivers criterion, as promulgated, does not allow any exceedance. For the 

Florida nutrient criteria, however, EPA promulgated a one in three year allowable excursion 

frequency for the annual geometric mean similar to the EPA Guidelines for Controlling Toxic 

Discharges. 

"A no more than one in three year frequency of excursions avoids unacceptable effects 

on aquatic life as it will allow the stream ecosystem enough time to recover from the 

occasionally elevated year of nutrient loadings (Chung et al. 1993; Huchens et a/. 1998; 

Minshall 2003; Stephan et a/. 1985; Tikkanen et a/. 1994; Vieira et a/. 2004; Wallace 

1990; Wallace eta/. 1986, 1991)." 

These events from which EPA justifies the recovery period are toxic pesticide spills and stream 

reconstruction. The nature of the impact from toxic events by far eclipses the nature and 

extent of the impact from excessive algae. In examining the appropriate allowable excursion 

frequency, the biological effect of an excursion must be considered. The one in three year 

frequency allowed excursion of an annual geometric mean could, in essence, allow unchecked 

algal growth and sustained major impacts to the stream 33% of the time. In the Oklahoma 

Scenic Rivers, this frequency would be unacceptable and would not be protective of the scenic 

rivers special status. 

For criteria in the range that controls algae growth, the effect of a single excursion (one day) 

should be imperceptible. That single excursion would allow luxury uptake of the nutrient that 

would drive a slight elevation of biomass and a slight change in the community metrics. 

Lacoursie' re (2011) showed that the recovery of the diatom community after a stone or tile is 

moved from high nutrient waters to low nutrient waters was a few weeks. The consequence of 

a single excursion in the short term is minimal. Cumulative effects of multiple short term 

excursions, however, should be prevented. Frequent short term excursion and luxury uptake 
331 

can result in a prolonged increase in algal standing crop followed by shifts in grazer 

communities and ultimately the fish community. Preventing the cumulative impacts makes it 

imperative that the 30 day geometric mean should not be exceeded. It should be noted, 

however; a geometric mean in itself does allow a frequency of exceedance because it renders 

single values as a descriptor of the data set. Furthermore, a geometric mean reduces the 

influence of extremely high values. 

Oklahoma has implemented an assessment protocol that allows monthly geometric means to 

exceed no more that 25% of the time. This implementation, however, is not promulgated as 

part of the OWQS, and contrary to the promulgated criterion which says that "The thirty (30) 

day geometric mean total phosphorus concentration in waters designated "Scenic River" in 

Appendix A of this Chapter shall not exceed 0.037 mg/L." The assessment protocol was 

developed by a working group made up of Oklahoma agencies with EPA Region 6 and Arkansas 

DEQ participating via telephone. The allowed 25% excursions frequency of monthly geometric 

means was adopted to reduce the likelihood of false positives in light of the limited data sets 

available to calculate 30 day geometric means. The assessment reality is that current 

technology and funding cannot practically provide data that represents the full range of 

conditions available to drive algae growth. As a side note, the working group favored 

extending the data sets to 3 months and included a requirement for storm flow data to bolster 

the data sets for the monthly calculation of the geometric mean. The allowed 25% exceedance 

was adopted to offset potential error introduced by limited data and compounded influence of 

the 90 day data set reassessed every 30 days. 

In this review effort, the Arkansas TAG members recommend that an "appropriate allowable 

exceedance frequency should be included in the TP criterion" because of the variability in 

phosphorus concentrations. EPA has also recommended that OWRB reconcile the assessment 

protocol and the approved criterion. EPA suggested that reconciliation could be achieved 

through modification of either the assessment protocol or the approved criterion such that the 

same averaging period and frequency are reflected in both places. (EPA noted that doing so 

would entail further OWRB analysis.) EPA also suggested that OWRB consider adding a 
332 

statement or footnote in the water quality standards at OAC 785:45-5-19(c)(2) to clarify that 

applicability or implementation of the averaging period and frequency in light of the data 

representativeness issues described by OWRB. To resolve these issues, the 30 day geometric 

mean could be preserved in the Scenic River's criterion language. Modification of the standards 

language could be considered to add a provision that would allow the calculated 30 day 

geometric mean to exceed the numerical criterion when the available data is not representative 

of full range of conditions in the preceding 30 days. 
333 

Consideration of the Protectiveness of the Scenic River Criterion for Downstream Waters 

Tenkiller and Broken Bow Reservoirs in Oklahoma and Lee Creek Reservoir in Arkansas are each 

downstream of an Oklahoma Scenic River(s). EPA requires that criteria must be protective not 

only of in-stream uses but of downstream uses as well. This principle is established in 40 CFR 

131.10(6). OWRB solicited information regarding this issue. There was no information 

submitted regarding the protectiveness of the criterion regarding these particular downstream 

waters. The ongoing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development schedule for the Illinois 

River is planned to include modeling for Tenkiller Reservoir. This modeling effort is not 

complete and any results have yet to be made available. Therefore, there is no data to consider 

at this time. 

Acknowledgements 

The OWRB staff appreciates the effort of Cara Cowan Watts. In addition to her service as a TAG 

member, Ms. Watts also provided the entire bibliography of her PhD dissertation. This proved 

to be a valuable addition to our identification of current best available science. 
334 

Appendix A 

Bibliography of Reviewed Literature 
335 

Scientific Literature Reviewed 

Over the past 10 years, OWRB staff have continually reviewed the major scientific literature and 

guidance related to nutrient criteria. Staff has continually reviewed all new editions of: 

Hydobiolgia, Journal of North American Benthological Society, Journal of American Water 

Resources Association, Limnology and Oceanography, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences, as well as any other relevant literature and state or EPA documents that relate to 

nutrient criteria development. 

The Technical Advisory Group reviewed information and reports that were submitted in 

response to the "Best Scientific Information" request. Included in the information submitted 

was a report completed by Wright Water Engineers, Inc. on behalf of the Northwest Arkansas 

Council. Also included in this information was a technical memorandum from GBMc & 

Associates on behalf of the City of Siloam Springs, Arkansas. The University of Arkansas as well 

as the United States Geological Survey (USGS) submitted information and research to be 

included in the TAG's review. In addition to these technical reports, there were also several 

comment letters from cities in northwest Arkansas. Reports and information from the 

Oklahoma Attorney General's files were also reviewed by the TAG. (All information reviewed is 

available at www.owrb.ok.gov/guality/standards/scenicrivers.php) 

In addition to the submitted information, the TAG also reviewed the results from an EPA "Nsteps" review. This review included abstracts from over 900 research articles related to 

nutrients and nutrient criteria development. 

The following are journal articles that were found to be relevant and were reviewed by the 

OWRB and the TAG: 

Andrews, W. J., M.F. Becker, S. J. Smith and R. L. Tortorelli. 2009. Summary of surface-water 

quality data from the Illinois River Basin in North Oklahoma, 1970-2007: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5182. 

Arnwine, D. and K. Sparks. 2003. Report: Comparison of nutrient levels, Periphyton densities 

and diurnal dissolved oxygen patterns in impaired and reference quality streams in 

Tennessee. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of 

Water Pollution Control. 

Bailey, B.W., B. E. Haggard and L.B. Massey. Project #09-400 Annual Report, Water Quality 

Trends Across Select 319 Monitoring Sites in Northwest Arkansas. 
336 

Baker, M. and R. King. 2010. A new method for detecting and interpreting biodiversity and 

ecological community thresholds. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp. 

25-37. 

Basu, B.K. and F.R. Pick. 1997. Phytoplankton and zooplankton development in a lowland, 

temperate river. Journal of Plankton Research Vol. 19, no .2, pp. 237-253. 

Biggs, B.J.F. 2000. Eutrophication of Streams and Rivers: Dissolved Nutrient-Chlorophyll 

Relationships for Benthic Algae. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 

Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 17-31. 

Bothwell, M.L. 198S. Phosphorus Limitation of Lotic Periphyton Growth Rates: An lntersite 

Comparison Using Continuous-Flow Troughs (Thompson River System, British Columbia). 

Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. 30, No.3, pp. 527-542. 

Bourassa, N. and A. Cattaneo. 1998. Control of Periphyton Biomass in Laurentian Streams 

(Quebec). Journal ofthe North American Benthological Society, Vol. 17, No.4, pp. 420-

429. 

Bowes, M.J., J.T. Smith, J. Hilton, M. M. Sturt, P.D. Armitage. 2007. Periphyton biomass 

response to changing phosphorus concentrations in a nutrient-impacted river: a new 

methodology for phosphorus target setting. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences, 64, 2; pp. 227. 

Carlson, R.E. 1977. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. 22(2). 

Carpenter, S., N.F. Caraco, D.L. Correll, R.W. Howarth, A.N. Sharpley, and V.H. Smith. 1998. 

Non point Pollution of Surface Waters with Phosphorus and Nitrogen. Issues in Ecology, 

Number 3. 

Caskey, B.J., J.W. Frey and S. Selvaratnam. 2010. Breakpoint Analysis and Assessment of 

Selected Stressor Variables on Benthic Macroinvertebrate and Fish Communities in 

Indiana Streams: Implications for Developing Nutrient Criteria. USGS: Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010-5026. 

Chetelat, J. and F. Pick. 2006. Potamoplankton size structure and taxonomic composition: 

Influence of river size and nutrient concentrations. Limnology and Oceanography, 51(1, 

part 2), pp. 681-689. 
337 

Chetelat, J., F.R. Pick, A. Morin and P.B. Hamilton. 1999. Periphyton biomass and community 

composition in rivers of different nutrient status, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Science. 56: 560-569. 

Chin, D.A. 2006. Water-quality engineering in natural systems. John Wiley and Sons. 

Clark, G.M., D.K. Mueller and M.A. Mast. 2000. Nutrient Concentrations and Yields in 

undeveloped Stream Basins of the United States. Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association, Vol. 36, No.4. 

Cole, R. A. 1973. Stream Community Response to Nutrient Enrichment. Journal Water 

Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 45, No.9, Annual Conference Issue, pp. 1874-1888. 

Corvallis Env. Research Laboratory. 1978. A Compendium of Lake & Reservoir Data Collected 

by the National Eutrophication Survey (NES) in the Central United States. Working Paper 

No. 476, USEPA National Eutrophication Survey, Working Papers Series, Office of 

Research & Development, 1974. 

Corvallis Env. Research Laboratory. 1977. Report on Tenkiller Ferry Reservoir Cherokee & 

Sequoyah Counties Oklahoma EPA Region VI. Working Paper No. 593, USEPA National 

Eutrophication Survey, Working Papers Series, Office of Research & Development. 

Davis, J.V., J.C. Petersen, J.C. Adamski and D.A. Freiwald. 1996. Water-quality Assessment of 

the Ozark Plateaus Study Unit, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma-Analysis of 

Information on Nutrients, Suspended Sediment, and Suspended Solids, 1970-92, U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4042. 

DePinto, J., V. Bierman, Jr., and F. Verhoff. 1976. Seasonal phytoplankton succession as a 

function of species competition for phosphorus and nitrogen. Modeling Biochemical 

Processes in Aquatic Ecosystems. 

Dodds, W.K. and R.M. Oakes. 2004. A technique for establishing reference nutrient 

concentrations across watersheds affected by humans. Limnology and Oceanography: 

Methods 2, 333-341. 

Dodds, W.K. and E. B. Welch. 2000. Establishing nutrient criteria in streams. Journal of North 

American Benthological Society, 19(1): 186-196. 

Dodds, W.K. 2003. Misuse of inorganic Nand soluble reactive P concentrations to indicate 

nutrient status of surface waters. Journal of North American Benthological Society, 

22(2):171-181. 

iii 
338 

Dodds, W.K. 2006. Eutrophication and trophic state in rivers and streams. Limnology and 

Oceanography, 51(1, part 2), 671-680. 

Dodds, W.K. 2007. Trophic state, eutrophication and nutrient criteria in streams. Trends in 

Ecology and Evolution, Vol.22 No.12. 

Dodds, W.K., J.J. Beaulieu, J.J. Eichmiller, J.R. Fischer, N.R. Franssen, D.A. Gudder, A.S. 

Makinster, M.J. McCarthy, J.N. Murdock, J.M. O'Brien, J.L. Tank, and R.W. Sheibley. 

Nitrogen cycling and metabolism in the thalweg of a prairie river. Journal of 

Geophysical Research, VOL. 113. 

Dodds, W.K., W.W. Bouska, J.L. Eitzmann, T.J. Pilger, K.L. Pitts, A.J. Riley, J.T. Schloesser and D.J. 

Thornbtugh. 2009. Eutrophication of U.S. Freshwaters: Analysis of Potential Economic 

Damages. Environmental Science and Technology, 43 (1), 12-19. 

Dodds, W ., J. Jones and E. Welch. 1998. Suggested classification of stream trophic state: 

distributions of temperate stream types by chlorophyll, total nitrogen, and phosphorus. 

Water Research, Vol. 32, No.5. pp. 1455-1462. 

Dodds, W.K., V.H. Smith and K. Lohman. 2002. Nitrogen and phosphorus relationships to 

benthic algal biomass in temperate streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Science, 59: 865-874. 

Dodds, W.K., V.H. Smith and B. Zander. 1997. Developing Nutrient Targets to Control Benthic 

Chlorophyll Levels in Streams: A Case Study of the Clark Fork River. Water Research, 

Vol. 31, No.7, pp. 17381750. 

Dojlido, J.R. and G.A. Best. 1993. Chemistry of Water and Water Pollution. Ellis Horwood 

Limited. 363 pp. 

Downing, J., S. Watson and E. McCauley. 2001. Predicting Cyanobacteria dominance in lakes. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 58: 1905-1908. 

Droop, M. R., 1973. Some Thoughts on Nutrient Limitation in Algae. Journal of Phycology, 9, 

264-272. 

Elwood, J.W., J.D. Newbold, A. F. Trimble and R.W. Stark. 1981. The Limiting Role of 

Phosphorus in a Woodland Stream Ecosystem: Effects of P Enrichment on Leaf 

Decomposition and Primary Producers. Ecology, 62(1), pp. 146-158. 

iv 
339 

ENSR Corportation. 2001. The Relationship Between Nutrient Concentrations and Periphyton 

Levels in Rivers and Streams- A Review of the Scientific Literature. Final Report, 

Document Number 4933-001-400. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual Rivers 

and Streams. EPA-822-B-00-002, July 2000. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. State Adoption of Numeric Nutrient Standards 

(1998-2008), EPA-821-F-08-007. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Technical Support Document for U.S. EPA's Final Rule 

for Numeric Criteria for Nitrogen/Phosphorus Pollution in Florida's Inland Surface Fresh 

Waters. 

Evans-White, M.A., W.K. Dodds, D.G. Huggins, D.S. Baker. 2009. Threshold patterns in aquatic 

biodiversity across water quality gradients in Central Plains streams and rivers. Journal 

of North American Benthological Society, 28(4):855-868. 

Fillos, J. and W.R. Swanson. 1975. The Release Rate of Nutrients from River and Lake 

Sediments. Journal (Water Pollution Control Federation), Vol. 47, No.5, pp. 1032-1042. 

Francoeur, S.N., B.J.F. Biggs, R.A. Smith, R.L. Lowe. 1999. Nutrient Limitation of Algal Biomass 

Accrual in Streams: Seasonal Patterns and a Comparison of Methods. Journal of the 

North American Benthological Society, Vol. 18, No.2, pp. 242-260. 

Freedman, P.L. and R.P. Canale. 1977. Nutrient Release from Anaerobic Sediments. Journal of 

the Environmental Engineering Division, Vol103, Issue 2, pp. 233-244. 

Gade, D.R. 1998. An Investigation of the Sources and Transport of Non point Source Nutrients 

in the Illinois River Basin in Oklahoma and Arkansas, Dissertation, Oklahoma State 

University. 

Giani, A., D.F. Bird, Y.T. Prairie and J.F. Lawrence. 2005. Empirical study of cyanobacterial 

toxicity along a trophic gradient of lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences, 62: 2100-2109. 

Godwin, C.M., M.A. Arthur, H.J. Carrick. 2009. Periphyton nutrient status in a temperate 

stream with mixed land-uses: implications for watershed nitrogen storage. 

Hydrobiologia, 623:141-152. 

v 
340 

Greenwood, J. and A. Rosemond. 2005. Periphyton response to long-term nutrient enrichment 

in a shaded headwater stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62: 

2033-2045. 

Grover, J.P. 1989. Phosphorus-dependent growth kinetics of 11 species of freshwater algae. 

Limnology and Oceanography, 34(2), 341-348. 

Haggard, B. 2005. Effect of Reduced Effluent Phosphorus Concentrations at the Illinois River, 

Northwest Arkansas, 1997-2004. Proceedings Report, 3'd Annual Total Maximum Daily 

Load Conference sponsored by: American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Atlanta, 

Georgia, 7-9 March 2005. 

Haggard, B. 2010. Phosphorus Concentrations, Loads, and Sources within the Illinois River 

Drainage Area, Northwest Arkansas, 1997-2008. Journal of Environmental Quality, 39: 

2113-2120. 

Haggard, B., J. Masoner and C. Becker. 2003. Percentile Distributions of Median Nitrite Plus 

Nitrate as Nitrogen, Total Nitrogen, and Total Phosphorus Concentrations in Oklahoma 

Streams, 1973-2001. USGS, Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4084. 

Healey, F. P. 1980. Slope of the Monad Equation as an Indicator of Advantage in Nutrient 

Competition. Microbial Ecology, Vol. 5, No.4, pp. 281-286. 

Herlihy, A.T. and J.C. Sifneos. 2008. Developing nutrient criteria and classification schemes for 

wadeable streams in the conterminous US. Journal of North American Benthological 

Society, Vol. 27, Issue 4. 

Hill, W.R. and S.E. Fanta. 2008. Phosphorus and light colimit periphyton growth at 

subsaturating irradiances. Freshwater Biology, 53, pp. 215-225. 

Hill, W.R. and S.E. Fanta. 2009. Quantifying phosphorus and light effects in stream algae. 

Limnology and Oceanography, 54(1), 368-380. 

Hill, W.R., B.J. Roberts, S.N. Francoeur and S.E. Fanta. 2011. Resource synergy in stream 

periphyton communities. Journal of Ecology, 99, pp. 454-463. 

Horner, R.R. and E. B. Welch. 1981. Stream Periphyton Development in Relation to Current 

Velocity and Nutrients. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Vol. 38. 

Horner, R.R., E.B. Welch, M.R. Seeley and J.M. Jacoby. 1990. Responses of periphyton to 

changes in current velocity, suspended sediment and phosphorus concentration. 

Freshwater Biology, 24, pp. 215-232. 

vi 
341 

Humphrey, K.P. and R.J. Stevenson. 1992. Responses of Benthic Algae to Pulses in Current and 

Nutrients during Simulations of Subscouring Spates. Journal of the North American 

Benthological Society, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 37-48. 

Justus, B.G., J.C. Petersen, S.R. Femmer, J.V. Davis, J.E. Wallace. 2009. A comparison of algal, 

macroinvertebrate, and fish assemblage indices for assessing low-level nutrient 

enrichment in wadeable Ozark streams. Ecological Indicators. 

Kevern, N.R. and R.C. Ball. 1965. Primary Productivity and Energy Relationships in Artificial 

Streams. Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. 10, No.1, pp. 74-87. 

King, R.S., and C.J. Richardson. 2003. Integrating bioassessment and ecological risk 

assessment: an approach to developing numerical water-quality criteria. 

Environmental Management, 31: 795-809. 

King, R., B. Brooks, J. Back, J. Taylor, B. Fulton. 2009. Final Report: Linking Observational and 

Experimental Approaches for the Development of Regional Nurtrient Criteria for 

Wadeable Streams. 

Lacoursie' re, S., Lavoie, 1., Rodr(guez, M.A. and Campeau, S. 2011. Modeling the response 

time of diatom assemblages to simulated water quality improvement and degradation 

in running waters. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Vol. 68. 

Lohman, K. and J.R. Jones. 1999. Nutrient- Sestonic chlorophyll relationships in northern 

Ozark streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 56: 124-130. 

Lavoie, 1., S.P. Campeau, F.O. Darchambeau, G. Cabana, and P.J. Dillon. 2008. Are diatoms 

good indicators of temporal variability in stream water quality? Freshwater Biology, 53, 

pp. 827-841. 

Masoner, J.R., B. E. Haggard and A. Rea. 2002. Environmental Characteristics and Geographic 

Information System Applications for the Development of Nutrient Thresholds in 

Oklahoma Streams. USGS- Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4191. 

Matlock, M.D., D. E. Storm, M.D. Smolen, M.E. Matlock, A. M.S. McFarland, L.M. Hauck. 1999. 

Development and application of a lotic ecosystem trophic status index. Transactions of 

the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Vol. 42(3): pp. 651-656. 

Matlock, M.D., D.E. Storm, M.D. Smolen, M.E. Matlock. 1999. Determining the !otic ecosystem 

nutrient and trophic status of three streams in eastern Oklahoma over two seasons. 

Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management, Vol. 2, pp. 115-127. 

vii 
342 

Matlock, M.D., B. Haggard, A. Brown, E. Cummings, L.C. Yates and D. Parker. 2009. Water 

Quality and Ecological Assessment of Osage and Spring Creeks in the Illinois River Basin, 

Arkansas, Final Report. 

Millican, J.S., J.A. Back and A. M.S. McFarland. 2008. Nutrient Bioassays of Growth Parameters 

for Algae in the North Bosque River of Cental Texas. Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association, Vol. 44, No.5. 

Miltner, R.J. and E.T. Rankin. 1998. Primary nutrients and the biotic integrity of rivers and 

streams. Freshwater Biology, 40 (1), 145-158. 

Miltner, R.J. 2010. A Method and Rationale for Deriving Nutrient Criteria for Small Rivers and 

Streams in Ohio. Environmental Management. 

Morgan, A.M., T.V. Royer, M.B. David and L.E. Gentry. 2006. Relationships among Nutrients, 

Chlorophyll-a, and Dissolved Oxygen in Agricultural Streams in Illinois. Journal of 

Environmental Quality, Vol. 35. 

Mueller, O.K. and N.E. Spahr. 2006. Nutrients in Streams and Rivers Across the Nation 

1992-2001. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5107. 

Murdock, J.N., W.K. Dodds, K.B. Gido and M.R. Whiles. 2011. Dynamic influences of nutrients 

and grazing fish on periphyton during recovery from flood. Journal of the North 

American Benthological Society, 30(2): pp. 331-345. 

Needham, R. 2002. Numerical Standard on Total Phosphorus for Scenic Rivers in Oklahoma. 

Report submitted to Oklahoma Water Resources Board. 

Oklahoma Water Resources Board. 2010. Probabilistic Monitoring in the Illinois River 

Watershed to Determine Multi-Assemblage Biotic Condition and Stressor Relationships, 

FY-2005 Section 104(b)3 (CA# CP-966144-01)-Water Quality Cooperative Agreement. 

Peeters, E.T.H.M. and J.J.P. Gardeniers. 1998. Ecologically based standards for nutrients in 

streams and ditches in the Netherlands. Water and Science Technology, Vol. 37, No.3, 

pp. 227-234. 

Petersen, J.C. and S.R. Femmer. 2002. Periphyton Communities in Streams of the Ozark 

Plateaus and their Relations to Selected Environmental Factors. USGS- WaterResources Investigations Report 02-4210. 

viii 
343 

Power, M.E., A.J. Stewart, and W.J. Matthews. 1988. Grazer control of algae in an Ozark 

mountain stream: effects of short-term exclusion. Ecology, Vol. 69, No.6, pp. 1894-

1898. 

Rier, S.T. and R.J. Stevenson. 2006. Response of periphytic algae to gradients in nitrogen and 

phosphorus in streamside mesocosms. Hydrobiologia, 561: pp. 131-147. 

Riseng, C.M., M.J. Wiley and R.J. Stevenson. 2004. Hydrologic disturbance and nutrient effects 

on benthic community structure in midwestern US streams: a covariance structure 

analysis. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 23{2): pp. 309-326. 

Robertson, Saad and Wieben. 2001. An Alternative Regionalization Scheme for Defining 

Nutrient Criteria for Rivers and Streams. USGS, Water-Resources Investigations Report 

01-4073. 

Rohm, C.M., J.M. Omernik, A.J. Woods, and J.L. Stoddard. 2002. Regional Characteristics of 

Nutrient Concentrations in Streams and their Application to Nutrient Criteria 

Development. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Vol. 38, No. 1. 

Schneider, S.C. and E. Lindstrom. 2011. The periphyton index of trophic status PIT: a new 

eutrophication metric based non-diatomaceous benthic algae in Nordic rivers. 

Hydrobiologia, 665(1): 143-155. 

Sheeder, S.A. and B.M. Evans. 2004. Estimating Nutrient and Sediment Threshold Criteria for 

Biological Impairment in Pennsylvania Watershed. Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association. 

Smith, A.J. and C.P. Tran. 2010. A weight-of-evidence approach to define nutrient criteria 

protective of aquatic life in large rivers. Journal of the North American Benthological 

Society, 29{3): pp. 875-891. 

Smith, R.A., R.B. Alexander and G.E. Schwarz. 2003. Natural Background Concentrations of 

Nutrients in Streams and Rivers of the Conterminous United States. Environmental 

Science & Technology, Vol. 37, No. 14. 

Soranno, P., K.S. Cheruvelil, R.J. Stevenson, S.L. Rollins, S.W.Holden, S. Heaton, E. Torng. 2008. 

A framework for developing ecosystem-specific nutrient criteria: Integrating biological 

thresholds with predictive modeling. Limnology and Oceanography, 53{2), pp. 773-787. 

State-EPA Nutrient Innovations Task Group, An Urgent Call to Action-Report of the State-EPA 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group, August 2009. 

ix 
344 

Stevenson, R. J., S.T. Rier, C.M. Riseng, R.E. Schultz and M.J. Wiley. 2006. Comparing effects of 

nutrients on algal biomass in streams in two regions with different disturbance regimes 

and with applications for developing nutrient criteria. Hydrobiologia, 561: pp. 149-165. 

Stevenson, R. J., B. H. Hill, A.T. Herlihy, L.L. Yuan and S.B. Norton. 2008. Algae-P relationships, 

thresholds, and frequency distributions guide nutrient criterion development. Journal 

of the North American Benthological Society, 27(3): pp. 783-799. 

Stevenson, R. J., B.J. Bennett, D.N. Jordan and R.D. French. 2011. Phosphorus regulates stream 

injury by filamentous green algae, thresholds, DO, and pH. (Manuscript is in pressHydrobiologia) 

Stevenson, R. J., B. Hill and A.T. Herlihy. A comparison of approaches for establishing nutrient 

criteria based on algal attributes in mid-atlantic streams. 

Stevenson, R. J., Y. Pan, K.M. Manoylov, C.A. Parker, D.P. Larsen, and A.T. Herlihy. 2008. 

Development of diatom indicators of ecological conditions for streams of the western 

US. Journal of the North American Benthologica Society, 27(4): pp. 100D-1016. 

Stevenson, R. J., S.T. Rier, C.M. Riseng, R.E. Schultz and M.J. Wiley. 2006. Comparing effects of 

nutrients on algal biomass in streams in two regions with different disturbance regimes 

and with applications for developing nutrient criteria. Hydrobiologia, 561: pp. 149-165. 

Stockner, J.G. and K.R.S. Shortreed. 1976. Autotrophic Production in Canation Creek, a Coastal 

Rainforest Stream on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. British Columbia Journal of 

Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 33: 1553-1563. 

Suplee, M. 2004. Wadeable Streams of Montana's Hi-line Region: An Analysis of Their Nature 

and Condition, with an Emphasis on Factors Affecting Aquatic Plant Communities AND 

Recommendations to Prevent Nuisance Algae Conditions. Report- Montana 

Department of Environmental Quality. 

Suplee, M.W., A. Varghese and J. Cleland. 2007. Developing Nutrient Criteria for Streams: an 

Evaluation of the Frequency Distribution Method. Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association, Vol. 43, No. 2. 

Suplee, M.W., A. Varghese and J. Cleland. 2007. Developing Nutrient Criteria for Streams: An 

Evaluation of the Frequency Distribution Method. Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association, Vol. 43, No. 2. 

X 
345 

Taylor, S.L., S.C. Roberts, C.J. Walsh and B. E. Hatt. 2004. Catchment urbanisation and increased 

benthic algal biomass in streams: linking mechanisms to management. Freshwater 

Biology, 49, pp. 835-851. 

Tett, P., C. Gallegos, M.G. Kelly, G.M. 1978. Hornberger and B.J. Cosby. Relationships among 

substrate, flow, and benthic micoralgal pigment desnsity in the Mechums River, Virginia. 

Limnology and Oceanograpy, 23(4), pp. 785-797. 

Tortorelli, R.L. 2006. Nutrient Concentrations, Loads, and Yields in the Euch-Spavinaw Basin, 

Arkansas and Oklahoma 2002-2004. USGS- Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5250. 

Tortorelli, R.L. and B.E. Pickup. 2006. Phosphorus Concentrations, Loads, and Yields in the 

Illinois River Basin, Arkansas and Oklahoma, 2000-2004, USGS- Scientific Investigations 

Report 2006-5175. 

Van Nieuwenhuyse, E.E. and J.R. Jones. 1996. Phosphorus-chlorophyll relationship in 

temperate streams and its variation with stream catchment area. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 99-105. 

Wade, A.J., G.M. Hornberger, P.G. Whitehead, H.P. Jarvie, and N. Flynn. 2001. On modeling the 

mechanisms that control in-stream phosphorus, macrophyte, and epiphyte dynamics: 

An assessment of a new model using general sensitivity analysis. Water Resources 

Research, Vol., 37, No. 11, pp. 2777-2792. 

Wang, L., D.M. Robertson, P.J. Garrison. 2007. Linkages between nutrients and assemblages of 

macroinvertebrates and fish in wadeable streams: Implication to nutrient criteria 

development, 39 (2), 194-212. 

Welch, E. B., J.M. Jacoby, R.R. Horner and M.R. Seeley. 1988. Nuisance biomass levels of 

periphytic algae in streams. Hydrobiologia 157: pp. 161-168. 

Wong, S.L., and B. Clark. 1979. The Determination of Desirable and Nuisance Plant Levels in 

Streams., Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Water Resources Branch, Limnology & 

Toxicity Sect., Rexdale, Ontario., Hydrobiologia, pp. 223-230. 

Wong, S.L., B. Clark and D.S. Painter. 1976. Application of underwater light measurements in 

nutrient and production studies in shallow rivers., Limnology & Toxicity Sect., Ministry of 

the Environment, Rexdale, Ontario., Freshwater Biology, 6, pp. 543-550. 

Zimmerman, M.J. and K.W. Campo. 2007. Assessment of Data for use in the Development of 

Nutrient Criteria for Massachusetts Rivers and Streams. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2007-5022. 

xi 
346 

Appendix B 

Phosphorus Values Assembled from Literature Review 
Refuren~ Baker,MA,andRS Kmg 112010 ziB•ggs2000 JIIJ1ggs2000 Bourassa and Cattaneo 411998 Caskey,BnanJ.,JeffreyW Frey,andSh1v1Selvaratnam >12010 &ICiletel~t et al.1999 

Chetelat,J.,F.R.Pick,and 

giP.B.HamitonZ006 

ClarkForkR1verTri-State 

111Counc•I.MT 

Clark,MuellerandMast 

i 

e Statistical Measure 

Tilresiloldlnd•catorTaxa 

Analys1s(TITAN) 

Averageof3Replkatesfor2 

Sampl1ngDaysforActual 

Cond1!1ons 

MeanConcentratmnRange 

forActuaiCondltlonsfor30 

Samples 

Mean ConcentratiOn for 

Actua1Con.d•t•onsfor30 

Samples 

uisancegf0Wffiisdef1nedas 

1SOmg/m2Periphyton 

RelatlveunDeveloped,flowwe•ghtedmedlan 

Benthic Chi a 

(mg/m2) 

0.73-81 

Area Studied 

25 Temperate New lea land streams 

2STemperateNewZealandstreams 

andr1vers 12Sr~owmei1FedSireamsmthe lowerlaurent1anMounta1nsof 

Quebec 

Ol\10 

13TemperatelowlandRiversin 

SouthernOntarlo&Western 

Quebec 

13TemperateLowlandRiversm 

SouthernOntar1o&Western 

Quebec 

BTemperateLowlandR1versm 

Southernontarlo&Western 

Quebec 

Canada 

Unknown 

R1versandstreams 

Citation 

Melhods1nEcologyand 

Evolutmnl010.1(1):25-37 

B•olog.cal Br~akpo•nls of the Str~ssorVanable• •nd 

Additional Comments 

lmphcat1onsfor0evelop1ng ITheseflndingsindlcatethataTPconcentrationtargetof0.042mg/Lb

Nutr~ent Cr~t~r~aSe~ent•f•c striped shiner biomass might be an appropriate c~ncentratlon for sho

lnvestigatlonsReport2010-5026 fromeutrophicormesotrophlcstreamclassrflcatlon L•~~-o~: ;~~~<::~7:::v ~~~:~,:~p~:~~~~:~:~~ucture and taxonomic tompos1t1on: Influence 

Llmnoi.Oceanogr,51(l,p•rt2l, 

2006,671-680 
l4IOodds2007 

n ercep o u 1pe 1near 

RegJess1on Models B.ued on 

lSI Dodds and Oakes 2004 0.059 Actual Land Use 

nercepo u1pe 1rwar 

Regress1onModelsBasedon 

1610oddsand Oakes 2004 I 0.031 Actual tand Use 

l Regression """''' Models Based on 1 Dodds and Oakes 2004 0.043 Attu_alland Use Max1rnumforStreamsand 

18IOodds and Oakes 2004 I 0.06 I Rivers 

!lil0oddsand0akes2004 

10IDoddsandOakes1004 

ll1Doddsand0akes2004 

n1Doddaand0akes2006 

0.059 0.031 

Forestecrstreams:TnTesser 

DevelopedBasms Developed Basins 

for!l$tedStreamsmLesser Oeveloped8as1ns 

Ecoreg1on!V Ecoregion!X Ecoreg10nXI 

Overal!recommendat1on 

NutrientEcoregJoniV 

NutnentEcoregioniX NutnentEcoreg1onXI 

FlmtH11lsofKansas 

Vol. 22 No. 12 ITrophlc State, Eutrophication and Nutnent Cntena m Streams 

.. Methodsl, 

2004,333·341 

!Environmental Managermmt VoL ITh!s research suggests that nutnent critena may not be met only by 

37,No.5,pp.634-646. permanentlyflow1ngstreams. 

niOoddsandWelch2000 m&/m' of the Time' <I literature review findings jEstabhshmg nutnentaitena lll streams 

HI Dodds and Welch 2000 0.02 

hteraturecomipation 

lex.::ellentba.::kgroundreadmg 

DoddsetaL(l006) 0<08 

271Doddsetal.1998 I 0.075 

tsiOodds et al. ;wos I 0.087 

29/0oddsetal 2008 I 0.08 

Tri·Statelmplementatton 

Counc!I,CiarkForkVo!untary 

NutnentReductionProgram 

Eutrophytsdef1nedas200 

/rngjm2PenphytonMaxlmum•· 

ummtMedmn 

Jncentrattonfor65Rt\ler 

Stat1onsdur1ngSummer 

Monthswlth100%EKceedmg 

IEPAReferenceMedtan 

Current Median 

Concentratlonfor274Rtver 

Stations durmg Summer 

Monthswtth99%Exceedmg 

!EPA Reference Median 

ClarkforkR1vl!r, 

Montana 

Literature revtew findtngs 

Data from North American, 

Australian, New Zealand and 

Streams 

Ecoreglon!V Ecoreg1on!X 
30!Doddseta!.2008 

Oodds,Sm1thandZander 

3111997 

Dodds,Smitt'landZander Dodds,SmlthandZ.ander 

:nl1997 

Dodds,Sm1thandZander 

3411997 

Oodds,Sm1thandZander 

3511997 

Oodds,W.K.,V.H.Sm1th, 

IC Lnhman 2002 

Dodds, W .K., V H Sm1th, 8 

n1Zander1997 

33 Oodds,etal{2008) 

39 OojhdoandBest1993 

4oiDoJiidoandBestl993 4liDojhdoandBestl993 

41IEPA 43IEPA2000 

0.035 

<0.01 

..... 

:>0.035 

0.02 

CurrentMed1an 

Concentratlonfor29DRwer 

Stat1onsdunn.gSummer 

Monthswith94%Exceedmg 

Nutsancegrowtti1sdefmedas 

100"200mg/m"Perlphyton 

M" 

Meankeferencelevel& 

Suggested Target level to 

AnalysisforMax100mg/m2 

!Chi a 

BreakpomtmA!gaiResponse 

NoRiskof150mg/m1 Chla 

Mean8enth1cChla<SO 

mg/m' 

bteakpmntonpenphyton biomass 

1100-200 

l<tso 

I'""' 

IMean<SO 

X! 

C!arlr.ForkRiver, 

Montana 

C!ari:ForkR1ver, 

ClarkForkR1ver, C!arkForkR1ver, 

Montana 

clarkForkR1ver, 

KansasRNer 

Surface waters 

Surfa{ewaters 

Surface waters 

AggEcor!X 

AggEcorVH! 
350 
52\Ef'A2000 

>li€PA;woo ~4\EPA 2006.: 

SO\Ef'A2010 

S!IEPA2010 

ss!EPA2010 

ss\EPA2010 

&;\EPA2010 

MlEPA2010 

EPARegmn7&8 

64!November2008 

Evans·Wh!te,M.A.,W.K. 

Oodds,O.G.Huggms,D.S 

6S\8akllr 

66\F,fleldan.dHames199S 

Godw•n, C.M, M.A Anhur, 

61\andH.J Carnck 

0.033 

00375 

01 

001 

0043 

0.107 

0.359 

0.739 

003·0.050 

11 

Human Health 

Cnter~aCont1nuous 

Concentrat1on{CCC) 

N1trate, Nrtnte, Ammoma & 

KejldahlNitrogenSummed 

I'''' 

Agg E,orV 

AggEcorV! 

Any water 

Seawater 

Clearlakes,Acldic 

Clearlakes,Aikalme 

Canals 

Panhandle Region 

Colored lakes 

PerJonsula 

NorthCentral 

Bone \Iaiiey 

AmbientWaterQuahtyCr<ten~ 

llecommendatoon>lnformatoon 

SupportmgtheD....,~lopmentof 

StateandTnbaiNutroeniCnleria 

llwersandStream•onNutroent 

horegl<mXI(De~2000) 

AmbtentWaterQIJalotyCr.ter~a 

Rer:ommendatoomlnlormat1on 

SupportmglheDevelopmentof St~teandTnbal Nutnent Cntena llw~r:s and Stream~ on Nutnent 

E~oreg,.m)(I{Dec2000) 

dbyEPAior ~~~~; IHasbeenproposedbyEPAior theStateofFiondaJanuary ~~~~r~~ ~~~;-~·~~ ~~-EPA for 

Ha;beenprop<>sedbyEPAfor 

the$tateofflonda.JarJuary 

1010 

l]Penphytonllnfolroma 0 . __________ _ 

and Nutnent Study ~~~::, ~:~:e m~:, ~:~"''"' CentralP!ail'lsstreams 

1989UKStandards 

J N,Am.Senthol Soc-,2009, 

28{4)855-868 

resultssuggestthatchal'lgesil'lresourcequahtycouldcontnbutetol

mbiodivl.'rsltylnnutnent-ennchedlotlcecosystems Wlthmshredd

gatherer macromvertebrate 1eedong groups, P-r"h food m1ght allow 

taxa with high ttody P demands to out-compete slower growmg ta~a 

quahtyfoodresources. Thlspatternsuggeststhatblot!Cinte!l;rltyiSd

nutnents m streams and that to~icrty, low dissolved 0 1, and mer ease

notbetheonlyrt~echan,smsleadmgtoreductionslndlversltyasnutr

concentrat1onsmcrease 

?enmylvama~tr><ams ~;~roboologo~ (2009) 623.141 1:~::~:~ommun1t1es were aMiyzed for nutnent status and elem
352 

1 

• ' • ! 

! 
aoiKing, R.S.,etal.2009 

Sl]Maidment1993 

&21Maidment1993 33IMaJdment1993 

841Mdtner&Rankin(1998) 

8SIM1ltner2010 

0.015-0.020 

0.02-6.0 0.02-6.0 

0.01-3.0 

0.06 0.04 

0.006 

maximum, threshold 

Concentrations for Water QuahtyPammetersin 

Streams and Rivers" 

Tables 11.1.3"Rangeand Typical Concentrations. for 

WaterQuahtyParametersin 

Streams and Rivers" 

Tables11.1.3"Rangeand Typical Concentrations for 

WaterQuahtyParametersln 

Streams and Rivers" 

protective cap? 

"sharpdedinein 

biolgical 

integrety" .04 m&/!TPfor 

protection based 

upon the change 

point in periphyton 

R.S.Kingetai.2009{Baylor 

\Jnlllersrty)104(b){:;!)reportto 

Texas/Cross Timbers Etoreg!On I EPA regmn 6 

1963Data 

Datas1tesareunknownbutappear 

toexdudeheavilypol!utednvers. 

Oatas1tesareunknownbutappear 

toexcludeheav1lypollutednvers 

Oh10 Mlltner&Rankm{1998) 

envoronmentalmanagemt 

Small rivers and streams in Ohio pubhshd on hne January 28 2010 

(November2008)Sti<:lnt!flcand 

TechrucalBaslsoftheNumenc 

Canad1anRoclaes Nutnent 

IMontanaDepartmentof I I I I CnterlaforMontana'sWadeable 

861Envlronmenta1Quality StreamsandR1vers, 

Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality 

87!20008 

Montana Department of EnVIronmenta!Quahty 

88)20008 

0.048 

0.123 

MlddleRock1es 

(November1008)Stmn.tlflcand 

Techrucal6asisoftheNumanc 

Nlltnent 

.Streamsat>dR•vers,Montana 

Department of Environmental 

Quality 

(November2C 

Techmca!Bas1 

Ni.!ttient 

Northwestern GlaCiated Plams Cmeria fer Montana's Wadeable 

StreamsandRivers,Montana 

Department of Environmental 

Qual•tv 
MontaoaDepartmeotof 

EowoomeotaiQualfty 

89\20008 

Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality 

9012008 

Montana Department of 

EI'1Vironmenta1Quallty 

91[2008 

Morgan.A.M.,T.V.Royer, 

M.B.Davfd,andL.E.Gerrtry 

92!(2006) 

93IMueUerandSpahr2006 

S41Muel!erandSpahr2:006 

ssiMue!!erandSpahr2006 

96!Muel!erandSpahr2006 

sJ!MuellerandSpahr2006 

sa!MuellerandSpahr2006 

0.124 

0.011 

0.012 

-o.ol 

-oon 

-o.os 

PercenbleConcentrattons 

RegresstonModelsBasedon 

Percentile Concentrations 

Regress1onMode!sBasedon 

Actual NAWQA Oata 

{Undeveloped/Reference 

Water$heds] 

PerceflttleConceotrattons 

RegresstonModelsBasedon 

Actual NAWQA Data 

{Undeveloped/Reference 

Watersheds) 

Percentt!eConcentratlons 

Regression Models Based on 

Actual NAWQA Data 

(Undeveloped/Reference 

Watersheds) 

f'ercenttleConcentrattons 

RegressJOnModels8asedon 

Actual NAWQA Data 

(Undeveloped/Reference 

Watel5heds) 

PercenttleConcentrattom 

RegresstonModelsBasedon 

Actual NAWOA Data 

!Watersheds) 

NorthwesternGreatPiams, 

Wyomingeasm 

Idaho Batholith 

NorthernRotkleS 

CntenaforMontana'sWaduble 

StrearruandRivers,Montano; 

DeoartmentofEnvlronmenta 

!ouallty 

1No~ember200S)klent1f•cand 

Tethn•ca!SasisofthaNumene 

CntenaforMontal'1a'sWadeable 

StreamsandRivers,Montana 

O~partmentoiEnvironmental 

Quabty 

CritenaforMont~na'sWadeable 

Stream•andR1vers,Montana 

Agnculturalstreamsinllhnots 3S,July·August 

Ecoreg1ooiV 

Ecoregton!V 

Ecoreg1on!X 

Ecoregion!X 

EcoregtonXl 

Ecoreg!OIIXI 

!Relattonshtps among Nutnents, Chlorophyll-a, and Dissov!ed Oxygen 

Stream.stn!lhnots 
355 

••••••••••• 

•••••••••• 

· .. ·•·•· ...... 

. ···· i 

· ...... 

••••• 

i••···· I[ 

I' 

I! 

r•·•·• l•••i 

[•·•· 

I> 

k•• 

" ~ 

I•••·•·•· 

, .... 

t ........... 

' 1·•.••••• 1 

I········ i ' " & i 

" i I I l g 

~I····· g 2 g g 

~It 

I 

~V•i 

f ~~···· i 

! 
Schne1der,SusanneC.and l121Eh·Annellndstr~~tml011 Sheeder,SA,andB.M 

lBIEvans 2004 

dusters based on 

macromvertebratedata 

0.037mg TP/l dusters 

Sm1th andChnstopherP I basedond1atomdati! 0.037 

1H!Tnnl010 mgTP/l 

tt>ISmithetal 2003 0.06 

tli!SmJthetal.l003 001 

118!Sm1thetaLlOtB 006 

119ISmJthetal2003 

uo1Smtthetal.2003 002 

l211Soranno,P.A.,etal.2008 0008-0.018 

t2l1Stevensonetal2006 003 

D31Stevensoneta!2006 0.01-003 

H41SteveMonetal2006 :>0.011 

Midpoint between 

impaired and unimpaired 

watersheds 

FUUyforestedStreamsm 

UndevelopedBasms 

Fu!lyForestedSi:i'eamsln 

UndevelopedBasms 

·rurtif:'Oie-stetfStreams m 

Undeve!opedSasms 

FullyforestedSfreams1n 

UndevelopedSasms 

FUUVFOre$tedStreamstn 

Vndeve!opedBasms 

FullyForestedStreams1n 

Undeveloped Basins 

lpredid!vemode!ofbJOioglcal 

Norway 

Pennsylvania 

lhydrob•o!gla Vo!ume66S, Numtler1,143·15S 

theArnencanWater 

;.SOOsamples from ;.350s1tes from the Norwegian mainland and ca

descnbetroph!cstatusatanvers'lte Asroci~tu:>n, Aug\I,St !Estimating Nutnent and Sediment Threshold Cntena for BmlogKall

Pennsylvania Watersheds 

40 large nver Sites throughout IJ N Am. s~nthol Soc., 2010. lA we1ght·of·ev1dence approach to def•ne r.utnent cntena protectJVe 

NewYorkState l9I3)B7S-891 largenvers 

NutnentEcoreg•on!V 

NutnentEcoregioniX 

NutnentEwreg1onXI 

NutnentEcoregtoniV 

NutnentEcoregmniX 

NutnentEwreg1onXI 

374Mtchlganlakes 

104streamsover2monthpenod 

forlstthrough4thorderstteamsin 

L<mnoi.Oceanogr.,53{2].200S, 

773-787 

Max1mum nutnent to avotd J;. 20%avg. & ;. 40%1 North Central U.S. and northwest 

lobservedNutnentlnpul:.l 

reatmganAigaiReipanse 

OhgotrophJcReferenceValue 

forStreamsandRivers 1100-20.0 

KentuckyandMKh!gan 

104streamsover2monthpenod 

farlstthrough4thorderstreamsin 

North Central U.S. and northwe.st IHydrob•ologJa {2006) 561:149· ICompanng effects of nutnents on alg.al b1omass 1n stre;,ms 111 two r

Kentucky and MiChigan 165 different d1stl.lrbance reg1mes and With apphcat1ons for deve!opmg n

104streamsover2monthpenod 

forlstthrough4thorderstreamsm 

NorthCentralU.S.andnorthwest 

Kentucky and Michigan 
Sfe\;-enson·u·n-puiirlsh-ed 

mldata(EPA2000d) 

Stevenson,R.Jan,BrianH 

Hiii,AianT.Herhhy, Lester 

L.Yuan,andSusanB. 

126INorton.(200S) 

Stevenson,R.Jan,etal. 

1271(2006) 

Stevenson,R.Jan,etal 

W!l(2008) 

0.01-0,02 Cladophora NUisance Growth •-

0.01·0.012 Thresholds and responces 

010·.030 

P cnterion between 0.01 and 

0.012TP/Lto protect 

hlghqua!ityb1ological 

STEVENSON, R.J., ET Al I conditions m streams of the 

129!2008 Mld·Atlantic Htghlands I median and average? 

Suplee,M.W.,A.Varghese, 

no!J. Cleland 2007 

UliStevensonetal2010 0027 

Threshold Response w1th 

f1lamentousalgae 

Streams 

High-quality biologiCal 

R. Jan Bnan H. H1ll, 

AlanT.Herhhy,Lest.,rL.Yuar>, 

andSusanB.Norton.{2008) 

Alga.,-Prelationships, 

thresholds, and frequency 

d1sttibutionsgu1denutrient critenondevelopment.Journalof 

theNorthAmencan 

conditions in of the Midjsenthological Soc1ety 27:3,783-

AtlantlcHighlands 799 

Mid-Attant1cH1ghlands 

Mid·Atlant1c Highlands 

Montana streams 

R.JanStevensonetal, 

Hydrobiologia{2006)S61:149-

16S. Comparmge-ffectsof 

nutrientsonalg:albiomassin 

streamsmtworegionsw1th 

different disturbance regimes 

andW1thapphcat1onsfor 

developmgnutrientcriteria 

R.JanStevensonetal.{2008) 

8entholog"a1Society. Algae-P 

relatior-.ships,thresholds,and 

dtstnbuttons gu•de 

nutrientcntencndevelopment 

Soc., 2008, thresholds, and frequency d1stnbut1ons gUide n

2007.DevelopmgNutnent 

CntenaforStreams:An 

Evaluation of the Frequency 

OtstributlonMethod Journal of 

theAmericanWatetResources 

A$S(lCJa!IOM (JAWRA) 43(2):453" 

472. DOl: 10 1111/J.I752· !Developing Nutnent Cntena for Streams: an Freque

Method 

Manuscriptisinpress· 

!!!inoir River Watershed I Hydrobiologia 
358 

f g • a a 

8' 8' 

~ 

I 

'f'~ " 
359 

Appendix C 

TAG Member's Comment Letters Regarding Draft Report 
360 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGIONS 

Mr. Derek Smithee, Chief 

Water Quality Programs Division 

Oklahoma Water Resources Board 

3800 ~orth Classen Blvd. 

Oklahoma City, OK 73118 

Dear Mr. Smithee: 

1445 ROSS AVENUE. SUITE 1200 

DALLAS. TX 75202·2733 

1 appreciate the opportunity to have participated in the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) 

assembled by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) in January 2011 to advise OWRB 

in its review of the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers total phosphorus criterion. This letter provides the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6's general input on key aspects of the 

review, while the enclosure to this letter provides additional, more specific comments on OWRB 

staff's document titled Draft Final Report: Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Phosphorus Criteria Review 

which was provided to TAG members for review on March 12,2012. 

In light ofEPA's role under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303{c) to review and approve or 

disapprove new and revised State water quality standards (WQS), EPA would like to separate its 

TAG member input from the overarching TAG recommendations included in OWRB staff's 

draft final report. Accordingly, I request that OWRB include this EPA letter as a separate 

appendix within OWRB staff's final version of the report (as has been done for the Arkansas 

TAG members' minority report). 1n addition to incorporating this letter in an appendix to the 

final OWRB sta±f report, 1 request that OWRB incorporate the revisions identified in the 

enclosure to this letter prior to fmalizing the report. 

Oklahoma's Scenic Rivers total phosphorus criterion is established in the Oklahoma 

Administrative Code (OAq at OAC 785:45-5-1 9(c)(2) and provides that. "'The thirty (30) day 

geometric mean total phosphorus concentration in waters designated ·scenic River' in Appendix 

A of this Chapter shall not exceed 0.037[milligrams per liter] mg/L" (brackets added). Because 

the objective of the TAG's effort was to review all three components of the Oklahoma Scenic 

Rivers total phosphoms criterion (including magnitude, duration, and frequency), EPA's input 

below focuses on each of these criterion components. 

Magnitude 

In adopting the Scenic Rivers total phosphorus criterion in 2002, OWRB used a 2000 United 

States Geological Survey (USGS) report titled Nutrient Concentrations and Yields in 

Undeveloped Basins of the United States as part of the scientific basis for the criterion.ln the 

report, summary statistics were calculated for percentile values (I 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 90%) 

of the flow-weighted mean stream values for several nutrient descriptors, including total 
361 

phosphorus. OWRB adopted a total phosphorus concentration of0.037 mg/L. based on the 

values included in the report as Table 1. representing the 751

" percentile value of undeveloped 

streams. 

In reviewing Oklahoma's submittal of the Scenic Rivers total phosphorus criterion, EPA 

reviewed not only Oklahoma· s scientific basis, but independently considered several other 

sources of data and information to address whether the outcome of Oklahoma's analysis is 

representative, scientifically defensible, and protective. EPA reviewed its national nutrient 

criteria recommendations for the Level III ecoregions occupied by the Scenic Rivers, as well 

Ozark Highlands ecoregion stream data for total phosphorus presented in another USGS report 

titled Percentih Distributions ofMedian Nitrite Plus Nitrate as Nitrogen. Total Nitrogen. and 

Total Phosphorus Concentrations in Oklahoma Streams, 1973-2001. Based upon the record 

before it, EPA detennined that Oklahoma's total phosphorus criterion is sufficient to protect the 

designated uses of the Scenic Rivers and approved the criterion on December 29,2003. 

Limited scientific information, additional to that available in 2003, has been gathered as a result 

of the 2011-2012 TAG criterion review effort and is described in OWRB's final report. The 

additional information does not indicate that a revision to the 0.037 mg/L magnitude component 

of the current criterion is necessary to ensure the criterion is sufficient to protect the designated 

uses of the Scenic Rivers. 

Additionally, th.: Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) developed by OWRB to guide the 

TAG· s review effort explains that a "no change'' recommendation should result from the review 

effort if there is either a "lack of adequate information" or if the "best scientific information 

supports the criterion." Arkansas TAG members' input stresses the lack of adequate information 

(e.g., need for a quantitative ecological endpoint need for a stressor-response study on the Illinois 

River), while Oklahoma TAG members' input emphasizes that the "best scientific information 

supports the criterion." OWRB's QAPP provides that either orthese conclusions should result in a 

"no change'' recommendation to OWRB's nine-member Board. Therefore, OWRB's 

recommendation to retain the current 0.037 mg/L criterion appears consistent with the QAPP. 

Duration and Frequency 

EPA believes that a consistent phosphorus criterion and assessment protocol is necessary to 

manage the Scenic River watersheds. In previous EPA TAO m~mlx:r comments, EPA suggested 

that reconciliation of the phosphorus criterion and assessment protocol could be achieved 

through modification of either the assessment protocol or the approved criterion such that the 

same averaging period and frequency are retlected in both places. EPA also suggested that 

OWRB consider adding a statement or footnote in the Oklahoma WQS at OAC 785:45·5-

19(c)(2) to clarify the applicability or implementation of the averaging period and frequency in 

light of the data representativeness issues described by OWRB. Either approach is likely to 

require additional data analysis and review of scientific information. EPA recommends that 

future work be completed to reconcile the differing durations and frequencies found in the 

phosphorus criterion and assessment protocol. 

In summary, I would like to commend OWRB staff for their commitment. hard work, and 

transparency in completing this task of reviewing the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers total phosphorus 

2 
362 

criterion, as well as each of the TAG members for their time, attention, and contributions 

throughout the review. EPA recognizes how important the shared watersheds of the Scenic 

Rivers are to both the States of Oklahoma and Arkansas. Ultimately. EPA believes that 

successful management of nutrients in these interstate watersheds will result from the availability 

of scientificall~ defensible and protective numeric nutrient criteria. supported by robust and 

carefully considered implementation, in both the States of Oklahoma and Arkansas. If you have 

any questions or concerns, please contact me at (214) 665-8055. 

Enclosure 

Sincerely, 

,, 17.1 

//· ( 

Melinda N. McCoy 

Environmental Scientist 

Watershed Management Section 

cc: She !lie Chard-McClary, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality 

Shannon Phillips, Oklahoma Conservation Commission 

Quang Pham. Oklahoma Depanment of Agriculture, Food and Forestry 

Steve Drown, Arkansas Depanment of Environmental Quality 

Ed Swaim, Arkansas Natural Resources Commission 

Cara Cowan Watts, Cherokee Nation 

3 
363 

Enclosure 

Additional EPA Comments on OWRB Staff's Document Titled Draft Final 

Report: Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Phosphorus Criteria Review 

(Provided to TAG members for review on March 12, 2012) 

I. (Page 2.) Given Arkansas' minority report and EPA's comment #5 below, we request the 

following revision to the second to last sentence in the "Executive Summary" on page 2: 

After several face to face meetings and conference calls of this group, the majorm ,,f the 

TAG concluded that the best scientific information currently available supports the 

current criterion; therefore, no change in the criterion is necessary. 

2. (Page 2.) The last sentence in the "Executive Summary" on page 2 states that the TAG 

"recommends that a holistic study documenting chemical, physical and biological integrity 

should occur to ~ide future water quality management of these waters" (emphasis added). 

However, the 4 and Slh "Findings of the TAG" found at the top of page 20 "suggest that a 

tomprehensive monilo7lng progrom be implemented." In light of the Arkansas TAG 

members' recommendation for "completion of stressor-response studies on the Illinois 

River ... ," OWRB should clarify its reference to "holistic study" in the Executive Summary. 

Is the "holistic study" referring to OWRB's original suggestion for a "comprehensive 

monitoring program" or to Arkansas TAG members' recommendation for a "stressorresponse study"? 

3. (Page 8.) In the last sentence in the "Introduction" on page 8, an opening quotation mark 

should be inserted before the word "sufficient." 

4. (Page 10.) The TAG Conference Call held in February 2012 (the 17"') should be added to 

Table 1 on page 10. 

5. (Page 19.) EPA requests the following revisions to the second paragraph of the 1'1 finding 

within the "Findings of the TAG" section on page 19: 

The maH>rit\ 1JI th~ Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Total Phosphorus Criterion Technical 

Advisory Group concludes that no change in the criterion is necessary due to the fact that 

the best scientific information currently available supports the current criterion. Hewe'let', 

~Jhe Arkansas members of the TAG have provided separate, contrary, recommendations 

which are included as Appendix C. EF'r\ L\ti m.:mber input:~ J'r"' !deJ ":parateh ti'L'm 

the ovcrarchinc fo\Ci r~commendatl,)n J.nJ i;- mcludcd in .~pp~nJL\ D ,,fthi• r~pun. 

6. (Page 25.) Within the section titled "Further Findings Concerning Duration and Frequency," 

we would like to request that the last two sentences under the subsection titled "Frequency" 

(near bottom of page 25) be replaced with new language. 

These statements: 

EPA also has called for a review of alternative assessment periods or to adopt rules that 

eliminate the inconsistency between the assessment protocol and the approved criterion. 
364 

Enclosure 

EPA recommends modification ofthe Scenic Rivers criterion with a proviso that would 

allow some exceedance when limited data are available. 

should be replaced with the following statements: 

EPA has also recommended that OWRB reconcile the assessment protocol and the 

approved criterion. EPA suggested that reconciliation could be achieved through 

modification of either the assessment protocol or the approved criterion such that the 

same averaging period and frequency are reflected in both places. (EPA noted that doing 

so would entail further OWRB analysis.) EPA also suggested that OWRB consider 

adding a statement or footnote in the water quality standards at OAC 785:45-5-19(cX2) 

to clarify the applicability or implementation of the averaging period and frequency in 

light of the data representativeness issues described by OWRB. 

7. (Page 25.) Within the section titled "Further Findings Concerning Duration and Frequency," 

we would like to request that the subsection heading titled "Recommendation" (near bottom 

of page 25) be revised to "OWRB Recommendation" or "OWRB Recommendation in Light 

of Arkansas and EPA TAG Member Comments." We request this revision, since the 

recommendation is an OWRB recommendation that has not been discussed or agreed to by 

the full TAG. Additionally, EPA would need to review and take action on any WQS 

revisions that could be adopted as a result ofOWRB's recommendation. 

2 
365 

D!LA,OMA 

DHUfloltNl Of EHV!.OI\IMEMl,l,l OI.!A.l!TY 

STEVEN A. THOMPSON 

Exewlive Director OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

March 20,2012 

Mr. Derek Smithee, Chief 

Water Quality Programs Division 

Oklahoma Water Resources Board 

3800 N. Classen Blvd. 

Oklahoma City OK 73118 

RE: Draft Final Report- Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Phosphorus Criteria Review 

Dear Mr. Smithee: 

IMRY FAlliN 

Governm 

The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) would once again like to thank you 

and all of the members of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) for the extensive effort put forth 

in the review of the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers phosphorus criterion. The Oklahoma DEQ concurs 

with the conclusions set forth in the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Phosphorus Criteria Review Draft 

Final Report. We would, however, like to offer comments on the Minority Report submitted by 

the Arkansas TAG members (Appendix C). 

The focus of the Arkansas TAG members' Minority Report is that the 0.037 mg/L TP criterion is 

not substantiated by the available information and the implementation of the standard should be 

delayed for a minimum of 10 years. The 0.037 mg!L criterion is not only appropriate, but is on 

the high end of the range supported by the studies reviewed during the re-evaluation process. 

The Arkansas TAG members' report states their belief that "there is a significant Jack of data 

specific to the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers and the Oklahoma portion of the Illinois River in 

particular." Based on the review of the available scientific literature, the studies indicate that 

algal growth response to total phosphorus concentrations is relatively constant across the globe. 

The opinions expressed in the Minority Report seem to be unfounded. 

The Arkansas TAG members' recommend a 10 year delay in implementation of the current 

standard to complete stressor-response studies on the Illinois River, allow for completion of the 

EPA's Illinois River Watershed Model, provide time for "legacy phosphorus" to work through 

the system, and include an allowable exceedance frequency to the TP criterion. The "completion 

of stressor-response studies on the Illinois River to provide a scientific basis to detennine the 

appropriate numeric standard for the river" as recommended in the Minority Report is not 

necessary in this case. Although fish and invertebrate evaluation is important in determination of 

the overall biological integrity of the stream, the designated use protected by the phosphorus 

707 NORTH ROBINSON, P.O. BOX 1677, OKlAHOMHITY, OKLAHOMA 73101-1677 

onnled on racyded paper with soy ink 

0 
366 

March 20, 2012 

Mr. Derek Smithee 

page 2 

criterion is "Aesthetics" which is not dependent on the status of fish and invertebrate 

communities. Additionally, completion of the EPA's Illinois River Watershed Model and 

allowing time to allow the effects of "legacy pollutants" to work through the system are not 

relevant to the task of establishing a total phosphorus criterion. 

The Arkansas TAG members raised the inconsistency between the total phosphorus criterion in 

Chapter 45 of Oklahoma's Water Quality Standards and the assessment methodology established 

in Chapter 46. The assessment methodology is not in question during the re-evaluation of the 

total phosphorus criterion. The total phosphorus criterion established in Chapter 45 is the 

criterion approved by EPA. 

Three additional recommendations proposed by the Minority Report are requiring 

implementation of Nutrient Management Plans, delaying controls specified for point source 

dischargers until2022, and continuing to encourage implementation of voluntary programs to 

reduce in-stream concentrations of total phosphorus in the shared Scenic Rivers. This appears to 

simply delay until 2022 the point source controls without regard to the EPA approved Scenic 

Rivers Phosphorus criterion. 

The Minority Report suggests that "both states should continue to encourage implementation of 

voluntary programs to reduce in-stream concentrations of total phosphorus in the Shared Scenic 

Rivers." While DEQ agrees with encouraging voluntary programs, these voluntary programs 

should be implemented in concert with regulatory restrictions on dischargers and poultry litter 

applications in order to achieve the clean water goals we all share. 

Once again, DEQ supports the decision of the Technical Advisory Group to retain the current 

Total Phosphorus criterion of0.037 mg/L for Scenic Rivers in Oklahoma and appreciates the 

significant effort and hard work invested in this review by the OWRB and the other members of 

the TAG in the review of this criterion. 

If you need any additional information on this issue, please contact me at 405-702-8174 or have 

your staff contact Mark Derichsweiler at 405-702-8188. 

Sincerely, 

S=Mc:::~ Water Quality Division 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality 
367 

.Mary Fallitl 

(;iiVt'rllflf 

March 26,2012 

Mr. Derek Smithee, Chief 

State or Oklahoma 

Secretary or Agriculture 

Water Quality Program Division 

Oklahoma Water Resources Board 

3800 N. Classen Blvd 

Oklahoma City, OK 73118 

Dear Mr. Smithee: 

.Jim Reest• 

S('<T<·tary f>f' Ag-ri(·ult11n· 

I appreciate the opportunity of participating in the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) for the reevaluation of the total Phosphorus criterion of0.037 mg/1 established to protect Scenic Rivers of 

our State. Your staff has provided the TAG with more than hundred technical documents and 

studies regarding the effect of Phosphorus on stream water quality. These documents and studies 

were reviewed and evaluated; the relevant scientific information indicated that the above 

criterion is within the range of values protective of outstanding resources waters or scenic rivers. 

We support the OWRB's recommendation to maintain the current total Phosphorus criterion of 

0.037 mg/1 for Scenic Rivers. The time and effort that you and your staff dedicated to this task 

are highly commendable. We are looking forward to working with you and other members of 

TAG in the protection and improvement of water quality of Oklahoma's streams and lakes. 

Sincerely; 

/c:l~t_/ 

Environmental 

Q~. Programs Manager 

Agricultural Environmental Management Services Division 

2XOO N. Lincoln Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 522-5719 

jim.rc~sc(ii)oda.statc.ok.us 
368 

MARYI'ALLIS 

G{lvt:RSOU 

TODDI.AMII I.t~:t.rn:s,\NT GO\'ER}iOH 

OKLAHOMA 

CONSERVATION TZ 

COl\IIM lSSION 

H(•sponsiblc Care For Oklahoma's Natural Hesourccs 

Feb. 8, 12 

Phil Moershel 

Water Quality Standards Section 

Oklahoma Water Resources Board 

3800 N Classen Blvd. 

Oklahoma City, OK 73118 

Dear Phil, 

~!I liE 'nii!ALLS EXEtU'rtVt: DIRECTOR 

MEN I'OLLANll AS."'I!'fi'.o\!IIT IHIU:enm 

The Oklahoma Conservation Commission has greatly appreciated the opportunity to participate 

with the Interstate/Tribal/EPA Technical Advisory Group charged with re-evaluation of the 0.037 mg/L 

total phosphorus criterion for Oklahoma's Scenic Rivers. We must commend the OWRB staff including 

Jason Childress, yourself,Derek Smithee, and others for the efforts made in coordinating the review and 

offering opportunity for review and input from the TAG as well as the tremendous efforts made to 

collect, evaluate, and summarize current and otherwise relevant scientific studies pertinent to the 

review. 

Certainly, if given unlimited resources, any scientist would envision a strategy for such a review 

that would involve a literature review and then specific field sampling program that studied the 

relationship between the biotic response and instream nutrient concentrations and cycling in the Scenic 

River watersheds. However, what that scientist would probably assume was that they already knew 

where the literature review would lead them and that literature review would not necessarily deter 

their path toward additional field work. Perhaps the most rewarding and educational experience of this 

exercise from my perspective was that the literature review reaffirmed that we had been following the 

most appropriate policy all along, even though we had limited in-situ data from Scenic Rivers when the 

state set the policy back in 2002. The literature review reaffirmed that whether you are in Texas, 

Kansas, Oklahoma, Canada, or New Zealand, the algal response to nutrient concentrations, especially 

phosphorus, was within the same range and that the Oklahoma Scenic River Criterion was 

conservatively within that range. So, the literature review confirmed that, although additional field 

investigations within the site specific conditions of the Scenic Rivers would certainly be valuable given 

STATE OF OKLAHOMA • OKLAHOMA CONSERVATION COMMISSION 2800 NORTJi UtiCOLN BOI.Jl.EVARO, SUITE 160 • {)t(LJJ-IOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 13105-4210 • (405)521 23M • FA'IC (405)52t·E686. • WV.WCONSERVATtON OK.GOV 
369 

the need for repeatability in science, there was no reason to suspect that such an investigation would 

lead us toward a significantly different number to protect this resource from eutrophication. 

The second topic of consideration was whether the current review based on a 30-day geometric 

mean of the data was appropriate. The geometric mean and averaging period were both topics of 

consideration and discussion, as was the case when they were originally developed. When Oklahoma 

first began to develop the standard in the early 2000s, OCC "ran the numbers" using our available data 

from the scenic river watersheds to consider what impact varying averaging periods would have on 

evaluation of the criterion. Based on that review, we concurred with OWRB's recommendation for a 30 

day averaging period because the longer 90 day or annual averaging period greatly reduced the impact 

of large, primarily NPS-driven loading events on the ability to meet the criteria. We felt that a longer 

averaging period placed the burden of meeting the criterion squarely on the shoulders of point sources 

while giving non point source a pass or waiver. 

Additional concerns about the appropriateness of the 30 day averaging period relate toward the 

misconception that sampling schedules generally mean that only one sample is collected In each reach 

per month so there really isn't anything to average. In fact, our network of various agency sampling in 

the watershed plus additional targeted storm event sampling results in multiple samples from each 

reach being collected during the 30 day period. 

The literature review related to the 30-day averaging period considered many different factors 

that affect algal biomass growth and accumulation other than or in concert with nutrient 

concentrations. Although longer averaging periods may be more appropriate to consider in terms of 

pollutant impacts on different aspects of the biological community, with respect to the impact of 

nutrient concentrations on algal biomass accumulation, the 30 day window is more closely tied to the 

time period for algae to respond to a loading and/or scouring event. 

Finally, as natural resources agencies, our mission cannot be to merely maintain the status quo, 

it must be to protect and improve the quality of natural resources. The State recognized the value of 

these scenic river unique resources in 1970 and since that time, water quality, in terms of algal biomass 

accumulations has continued to degrade. To protect that resource, we must adopt a criterion that will 
370 

not enable the status quo, but will push toward protection against anti-degradation and work toward 

improved water quality. 

In closing, we respect our partners in Arkansas who are working to protect their natural 

resources and suggest that we are all working toward the same goal. Arkansas has focused substantial 

efforts toward protecting water quality in Beaver Lake and the White River where USGS reports 

(Analysis of Ambient Conditions and Simulation of Hydrodynamics and Water-Quality Characteristics in 

Beaver Lake, Arkansas, 2001 through 2003,byloe/ M. Galloway and W. Reed Green) median in-stream 

phosphorus concentrations of 0.02-0.04 mg/L for multiple sites between 2001 and 2003 and in-lake 

concentrations near or below detection forsurface and metalimnion sites. Compare these numbers to 

the 2003 Oklahoma Beneficial Use Monitoring Program summary where the Illinois River geometric 

mean was 0.119 mg/L at Tahlequah and 0.225 mg/L at Watts. Lakewide average total phosphorus in 

Lake Tenkiller was reported in the OWRB 2003 BUMP report at 0.063 mg/L at the surface and ranged 

from 0.006 -0.156 mg/L. Concentrations in the White River watershed have increased over time, 

although median values for the last two years of record are approximately 0.047 and seem to be fairly 

constant at that level since 2009. We applaud Arkansas for their efforts to protect this valuable 

resource, and value their partnership in our efforts to protect our Scenic Rivers. 

In summary, we support the OWRB recommendations that the current Oklahoma Scenic River 

total phosphorus criterion of 0.037 mg/L is a scientifically defensible number and conservatively within 

the range of what should be an appropriate goal for the river. We also agree that the 30 day geometric 

mean is the appropriate means by which to assess this criterion. You and your staff are to be 

commended for your efforts in this review process and we look forward to working with all partners 

involved in the TAG toward the continued improvement of water quality in these important resources. 

Sincerelv •.. 

Shanon Phillips 

Water Quality Division Director 
371 

March 26, 2012 

Cherokee Nation Tribal Councilwoman 

District 5 Seat 2- Tulsa & Rogers County 

P.O. Box 2922 

Claremore, OK 74018 

Email: cara@caracowan.com 

Cherokee Nation 

P.O. Box 948 

Tahlequah, OK 74465 

www.cherokee.org 

(918) 453-5000 

Re: Comments on OWRB's Draft Report for Scenic Rivers TP Criterion Review 

Dear Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Technical Advisory Group Members: 

I am honored to be an active member of the lnterstate!Tribai/EPA Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to 

review the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Standard (OSRS) for Total Phosphorus (TP) of 0.037 mg/L TP. The 

work is required as stated in the 2004 Joint Principles and Actions agreement between the State of 

Oklahoma and the State of Arkansas. I appreciate the EPA for funding the work of this group and the 

dedication of the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) staff for making the work happen. 

Overall, I found the report is excellent. Work on the OSRS is an on-going effort where I am sure all 

governments involved will strive to protect our water ways for future generations. Based on the work of 

the TAG, I find no reason to lower the standard by increasing the allowable TP levels within our Scenic 

Rivers. No one on the TAG offered either relevant literature, existing studies or new data which would 

cause the standard to be less stringent. The literature suggests to me our standard should be stronger 

and lower than 0.037 mg/L TP. 

With respect to the objective of the TAG to re-evaluate the 0.037 mg/L total phosphorus (TP) Oklahoma 

Water Quality standard (WQS) criterion assigned to all six Oklahoma Scenic Rivers, I offer the following 

comments on the OWRB's Draft Report for Scenic Rivers TP Criterion Review. 

1. There are six Scenic Rivers and little to no work by the TAG was done to consider the other 

Scenic Rivers. Most of the focus was on the Illinois River and consideration of the TP standard 

for the one river body, 

2. On page 3, Oklahoma's Scenic Rivers should be more than "better than average," Oklahoma's 

Scenic Rivers should be or should strive to be pristine and remarkable. 

3. The EPA's Numerical Nutrient Criteria recommendations from 2000 should be included in a table 

within the report for comparison. As an example, I have included a table from my dissertation 

work as an attachment. 

4. Since this is a TAG, we should include the technical qualifications of each participant on page 6 

for transparency to both the public and the technical and academic communities who need to 

better understand the outcomes of the TAG reports. 

5. I am concerned the TAG never reached consensus on the acceptable level of risk before moving 

forward with actual data and plans for future work together to protect our waters of national 

significance. Wrthout a numerical threshold of risk, I believe it is difficu~ to determine the 

feasibility or effectiveness of any was. 

6. A visual needs to be included on the actual implementation of the OSRS, so duration and 

frequency of sampling as applied to the OSRS is clear. 

7. The information at the top of page 19 concerning toxic pesticide spills needs to be frarned rnore 

within the context of our report. 
372 

• Page 2 March 26, 2012 

8. More work could be included involving luxury uptake, nutrient response thresholds and such but 

there seemed to be little interest amongst many of the TAG participants to really delve into the 

science of nutrient uptake mechanisms involved with understanding nutrient response thresholds 

and more which impact the determination of numerical nutrient criteria. 

Please acknowledge the contribution from my literature review as I have not, yet, defended my 

dissertation and do not want any confusion about the source of the work completed. 

Please note the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations were not included in the TAG and possibly have 

jurisdiction and interests concerning the (Upper) Mountain Fork River. The Cherokee Nation does not 

speak for the Choctaw Nation or Chickasaw Nation. 

The Cherokee Nation is participating in this TAG in an effort to reach a science based consensus 

regarding whether 0.037 mg/L TP is sufficiently protective of water quality for our Scenic Rivers. In no 

way does the Cherokee Nation acknowledge the right of the State of Oklahoma to set water quality 

standards for waters located within the traditional treaty boundaries of the Cherokee Nation, nor does the 

Cherokee Nation acknowledge the regulatory role or any other claims the State of Oklahoma may assert 

over such waters. 

Wado (Thank you) to everyone who has contributed to this report and the OWRB staff who did an 

excellent job in compiling our work and providing additional scientific depth from the literature. 

Sincerely, 

Cara Cowan Watts 

Deputy Speaker 

Cherokee Nation Tribal Council 
373 

OKlAHOMA 

OUAITWNT Of EIMIONI4Eli!Al Q(J.WTY 

STEVEN A. THOMPSON 

Exacufive Director OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAl QUAliTY 

Februlll)' 1, 2012 

Mr. Derek Smithee, Chief 

Water Quality Programs Division 

Oklahoma Water Resources Board 

3800 N. Classen Blvd. 

Oklahoma City OK 73118 

Dear Mr. Smithee: 

MARY FAlliN 

Governor 

The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality would like to thank you aod all of the members of 

the Technical Advisory Group (fAG) for the extensive effort put forth in the review of the Oklahoma 

Scenic Rivers phosphorus criterion. The Oklahoma DEQ believes that the phosphorus criterion is 

critically important to protect the water quality of our Scenic !Uvers. The considerable effort put forth by 

the Oklahoma and Arkansas state agencies, EPA Region 6, and the Cherokee Nation demonstrates the 

importance of protecting these waters. 

OWRB staff compiled over !50 documents pertaining to the review of the phosphorus criterion. These 

documents included numerous scientific studies, water quality data, and other documents submitted by 

concerned parties. DEQ staff conducted an extensive review of the identified relevant scientific literature 

provided by the OWRB. Our review of the data and scientific studies led us to the conclusion that the 

current O.o3 7 mg!L Total Phosphorus criterion is within the range of values consistently demonstrated as 

protective of the concerned waters. Although we believe the 0.037 mg!L criterion occurs at the upper 

portion of the protective range, the literature reviewed does not indicate that the 0.037 mg/L Total 

Phosphorus criterion for Scenic Rivers should be modified. DEQ's opinion is that the studies conf1r111 

that the current Scenic Rivers criterion is scientifically supported. 

Based on the available scientific studies, DEQ supports the decision of the TAG to retain the current Total 

Phosphorus criterion of 0.037 mg!L for Scenic Rivers in Oklahoma. We appreciate the significant effort 

and hard work invested in this review by the OWRB and the other members of the TAG in the review of 

this criterion. 

Sincerely, 

d.~~~ Water Quality Division 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality 

707 NORTH ROBINSON, P.O. BOX 1677, OklAHOMA aJY, OKlAHOMA 73101-1677 

prlnled CU'I tecyclad papsr with eoy Ink 

~) 
374 

ADEQ 

A R K A N S A S 

Department of Environmental Quality 

March 16,2012 

Mr. Derek Smithee, Chief 

Water Quality Programs Division 

Oklahoma Water Resources Board 

3800 N. Classen Boulevard 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73118 

Re: Draft Final Report, "Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Phosphorus Criteria Review," 

March 30th, 2012 

Dear Mr. Smithee, 

We are in receipt of the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) Draft Final Report entitled, 

"Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Phosphorus Criteria Review," and dated March 30, 2012. We are 

writing to document the Arkansas TAG members' objections to this final draft. 

There is no consensus on the recommendations contained in the final draft. The members of the 

TAG representing Arkansas do not agree with the recommendations contained in the final draft. 

This fact is not discussed until page 19 (of a 27 page report). On page 19, the Arkansas TAG 

members' position is summarized as having "provided separate, contrary, recommendations .... " 

It appears to the Arkansas TAG members that no good reason exists for characterizing our 

separate recommendations as "contrary" and for not clearly identifying throughout the final draft 

whose opinions and recommendations are reflected in the report. 

As discussed during the TAG's first meeting, it was your stated goal that you hoped a consensus 

could be reached at the conclusion of this process. However, if a consensus could not be 

reached, the Arkansas TAG members understood that a "Majority Report" and a "Minority 

Report" would be prepared and would be submitted as companion documents to the OWRB 

Board. There was no consensus reached on the total phosphorus criterion review. Accordingly, 

the Arkansas TAG members prepared a Minority Report, which clearly identifies the authors, 

their separate recommendations, and the fact that the report is a minority report. Our report is 

entitled, "Arkansas TAG Members' Minority Report lo OWRB." Further, the first paragraph of 

the report states: 

The following report is prepared by the Arkansas TAG members as a Minority Report in 

response to OWRB stairs report to OWRB. The Arkansas TAG members appreciate the 

opportunity to participate in the process to develop a recommendation to the OWRB on 

Oklahoma's total phosphorus criterion. However, because the Arkansas TAG members 

cannot agree with the OWRB staff's report recommendations to maintain the total 

phosphorus standard for Oklahoma's Scenic Rivers as adopted without modification, we 

have prepared this Minority Report to OWRB. 

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

5301 NORTHSHORE DRIVE I NORTH LITlLE ROCK I ARKANSAS 72118·5317 /TELEPHONE 501-682-07 44 I FAX 501-682·0880 

www.adeq.stote.or.us 
375 

(Page J of Minority Report.) The Arkansas TAG members also clearly asked in the first section 

of the document that the Minority Report be submitted to the OWRB as a separate stand-alone 

document (see page 5). Nonetheless, the Minority Report is attached as the last appendix of the 

87 -page final draft document. 

For pwposes of clarification, the Arkansas TAG members insist on the following changes to the 

final draft: 

• The Final Report must clearly be identified as a Majority Report and titled as such; 

• The Final Report must clearly articulate at the beginning that no consensus was reached 

on the recommendations to the OWRB, and a Majority Report and a Minority Report 

were drafted and submitted to OWRB as separate documents; 

• The TAG members who support the recommendations contained in the Majority Report 

must be clearly identified throughout the Final Report to eliminate any confusion about 

who supports the recommendations and who does not; 

• The last sentence in paragraph 2, on page 19, which states, "However, the Arkansas 

members of the TAG have provided separate, contrary, recommendations which are 

included as Appendix C" should be deleted; and 

• Appendix C should be deleted so the Arkansas TAG Members' Minority Report is not 

attached to the Majority Report. 

The Arkansas TAG members ask 0 WRB staff to submit the Majority Report and the Minority 

Report as separate documents to the OWRB. 

If these requests cannot be accommodated, then the Arkansas TAG Members ask you to delete 

from the Final Report any reference to the Arkansas TAG members' participation in this process. 

Finally, the Arkansas TAG members note that the final draft contains revisions, including new 

information. Without adequate time to conduct a substantive review, the Arkansas TAG 

members are not commenting on the revisions or new information. 

Sincerely, 

~-rihi t( 1/h)UJ!{ 

Steven L. Drown 

Chief, Water Division 

ADEQ 

cc: Teresa Marks, Director ADEQ 

Randy Young, Director, ANRC 

Ryan Benefield, PE, Deputy Director, ADEQ 

Melinda McCoy, U.S. EPA, Region 6 
376 

Senator BOOKER. Then on June 30th, 2012, the 10-year phase-in 

going back to the Supreme Court decision, the actions by Oklahoma, the 10-year phase-in period was completed in full compliance 

and the .037 became required. It became now what was required 

by the States. 

Just to recap all of this, because it is a lot, 20 years, Oklahoma’s 

EPA approved a .037 phosphorus standard more than two decades 

in the making. It had just been reaffirmed by the Oklahoma Water 

Resources Board, and then the 10-year compliance period phase-in 

had expired. 

So when you said that you had entered into a second agreement 

with Arkansas that in your words was a historic agreement to 

clean up the river, that would reduce pollution from poultry growers, this is the question that I have, sincerely, I pulled that 2013 

agreement and read it, and it was stunning to see that it actually 

didn’t take any steps to reduce pollution but actually only proposes 

another unnecessary study and attempts to suspend compliance 

that was two decades in the making with the .037 standard. It suspended compliance for yet another 3 years of pollution. 

Isn’t it true that is what the agreement did? 

Mr. PRUITT. It isn’t, Senator. There was actually no enforcement 

of the .037 standard taking place on Arkansas’ side of the border. 

You referred to the Memorandum of Understanding, and I actually 

have the second Statement of Principles here before me as well, 

that expired in the 2012–2013 timeframe. That is what presented 

my office with the opportunity to go to Arkansas to ensure that the 

.037 standard would actually be enforced from a State law perspective on that side of the border. That had never taken place in history. 

You mentioned the EPA. There was no enforcement authority 

that had taken place on that phosphorus level by the EPA. Oklahoma had it, as you have indicated, as a standard, but it was not 

being enforced upstream in Arkansas. That is what the agreement 

addresses. 

Senator BOOKER. Mr. Pruitt, I don’t have the seniority or the 

stature or the grandchildren of Senator Inhofe so I can’t go over my 

time, but I will say this. In my next round, I will go back into this, 

because the documents don’t seem consistent at all with what you 

are saying. In my next round of questioning, I’d like to go a little 

bit deeper into this historic settlement. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Booker. 

I would introduce for the record an article that appeared in the 

Tulsa World this past January 12th, 2017, going way beyond the 

20 years of that panel, but 33 years. It is by Ed Fite who served 

as the agency administrator of the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission from September 1983 until June 2016, 33 years. His statement in this op-ed that he wrote is, ‘‘I have found that Pruitt has 

always done right by our scenic rivers. For the first time ever, he 

has gotten the State of Arkansas, which happens to have parts of 

the streams we have designated as scenic rivers originating in and 

flowing through their State, to agree to Oklahoma’s scenic rivers 

phosphorus standard, an incredible environmental accomplishment, 

the effect of which cannot be understated.’’ 
377 

[The referenced information follows:] 

Ed Fite: I welcome Scott Pruitt to run the EPA • Tulsa World: Homepagelatest Page 1 of2 

Ed Fite: I welcome scott Pruitt to run the EPA 

By Ed Fite I Posted: Thursday, January 12,2017 ;iii:;~.!'!!!! 

We have all heard much yammering, left and right, 

about President-elect Donald Trump having 

selected Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt 

as the next bead of the Environmental Protection 

Agency. As a conservationist and riverologist, I 

have worked firsthand with Pruitt and know a good 

deal more about him than those nationally who are 

attempting to malign him. 

I have made it my life's work and my career to 

look after our state's designated scenic rivers. As a 

state employee and a resource facilitator (I cannot 

take care of these valued-treasured water resources 

by myself), I always fmd myself arguing for the 

middle grolllld, for the workable solution upon 

which both sides of an issue can agree. I have 

looked and worked for real solutions, and have 

implemented them with help from all sides. 

Ed Fite 

Fite 

Instead of engaging in years of interstate litigation, he did this by negotiating an agreement with 

Arkansas Atturney General Dustin McDaniel, a practical and economical approach that will yield 

enormous environmental benefits, 

To understand the magnitude of this agreement, one must consider that Oklahoma and Arkansas 

have litigated over illinois River water quality for more than three decades. The latest action 

brought by Oklahoma, about abating water quality degradation from the land-application of 

poultry waste in the Illinois River watershed, has languished for more than six years in federal 

http:llwww.tulsaworld.com.lhomepagelatestled-fite·i·welcome·scott-pruitt-to-rllll-the>-epa/a... 1/16/2017 
378 

Ed File: I welcome Scott Pruitt to run the EPA- Tulsa World: Homepagelatest Page 2 of2 

District Court. Many thought that when Pruitt took office he would abandon this suit because he is 

also known for his staunch support of farming and ranching communities. 

However, not only did Pruitt allow the case to be fully litigated, he proactively sought this joint 

state solution to let science detennine the phosphorus standard for the Illinois River. In the end, a 

study conducted by Baylor University reinforced that the phosphorus standard Oklahoma sought 

to protect would remain. 

Last, I have not seen him advocate dismantling the EPA. Rather, he has rightfully supported 

necessary laws but has challenged the agency when it has written rules without Congress having 

given it authority to do so. An administrative agency should not decide what the law is in the 

absence of legislation. 

And so, my middle-of-the-river view is that Scott Pruitt is one who is committed to finding a 

balance that protects and preserves our environment while at the same time affords an opportunity 

for a robust economy to exist. Achievement of one doesn't have to be exclusive of the other. 

Ed Fife served as the agency administrator of the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission from 

September 1983 through June 2016. He wrote this for InsideSources.com. 

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/ed-fite-i-welcome-scott-pruitt-to-run-the-epala... 1116/2017 
379 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Attorney General Pruitt, in August 2016 the EPA Inspector General found the EPA had failed to follow through with its commitment to update its 2010 life cycle analysis for corn ethanol and has 

also failed to perform its legally required comprehensive study on 

the environmental effects of the RFS, the Renewable Fuel Standard. EPA’s information on ethanol’s life cycle emissions is inaccurate, and it is outdated. Today’s best available science shows that 

blending ethanol into gasoline can significantly reduce greenhouse 

gases. However, the EPA has failed to update its own science with 

the most recent, best science that is available and continues to rely 

on outdated, inaccurate science when setting national policy, regulatory biofuels policy. 

What are your thoughts on the EPA relying on outdated, inaccurate science to set Federal regulatory policy? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, I think it is the obligation of the EPA in 

taking steps, rulemaking and otherwise, to ensure that it has the 

most up to date, objective scientific data possible. 

Senator ROUNDS. Let me follow up a little bit. The current EPA 

process for considering the scientific information underpinning 

major regulations, I believe, is flawed, and it is unbalanced. For example, the Scientific Advisory Board, or the SAB, is to provide scientific advice to the EPA Administrator and Congress. But there 

is a significant lack of geographic diversity in State, local, and tribal representation on the SAB. 

Can you explain to us what your views are on the agency science 

and what you envision as the role of agency science at the EPA? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, as you and I talked about in our meeting, 

I think it is important to have that geographical representation 

better represented, and there are some conflicts of interest application with the Science Advisory Board that need to be addressed as 

well, and also with the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, 

which is a standing committee of the Science Advisory Board. 

Senator ROUNDS. I have got a chart that shows the geographic 

makeup of the 2015 chartered SAB. Of the 54 members the majority of them come from East or West Coast States. I also have a 

chart that shows the number of States that have government representatives on the SAB. 

How would you broaden the geographic scope of SAB members 

to make certain that States and various governmental entities are 

represented? The one on the left shows the lack of diversity with 

regard to the actual members on the board. The one on the right 

actually shows that we have a grand total of two States with representation for State and local units of government on those 

boards. 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, if confirmed, it is an issue as I have indicated, and we talked about in your office, that is important to address to ensure there is confidence that science is driving rulemaking, that it is objective and tethered to the rules adopted by 

the EPA. So this is a very important issue that needs to be evaluated and discussed to ensure the efficacy of the science that occurs 

at the EPA. 
380 

Senator ROUNDS. Would you commit to us that you would make 

an effort to see that the Science Advisory Board actually reflects 

some fairness with regard to geographic diversity as well as recognizing the important role that local and regional governments and 

State and local governments have in determining or at least participating in these boards and commissions? 

Mr. PRUITT. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you on 

that issue. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

Let me finish quickly with just one other item. We have listened 

a lot to whether you are working on behalf of industries, whether 

you are working on behalf of the folks from Oklahoma, and your 

role as an administrator with regard to clean air, water, and so 

forth. As the Attorney General you have represented the interests 

of your State and both your State’s economy and your State’s environment. Just because you are pro-economic development and proeconomic development growth does not mean that you have to be 

anti-environment. Preserving the environment and preserving the 

economy I don’t believe are mutually exclusive. I don’t think you 

have to choose between the two. 

How would you balance economic growth with making certain 

that we have clean air and clean water? 

Mr. PRUITT. I think part of it is inherent in the statutes and the 

process that the EPA is supposed to conduct. I know sometimes 

rulemaking is seen as something that is not terribly important or 

something laborious, but the reason rulemaking, the reason Congress has said you offer notice on a proposed rule and you take 

comment is it is needed to make sure all voices are heard and that 

there is an informed decision that regulators are making before 

they finalize rules, because of the impact it has on the economy 

and on the environment in this instance. 

Rulemaking is something we should take seriously and that we 

should do so consistent with the framework outlined by Congress 

so that all those voices are heard that you are referring to, Senator, 

in the rulemaking process. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Rounds. 

Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pruitt, earlier today you said the EPA has an important role 

in regulating carbon dioxide because of the 2007 landmark Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA. The EPA Administrators for both President Bush and President Obama made a decision that carbon pollution poses a danger to America, otherwise 

known as the Endangerment Finding. 

Will you promise to keep on the books the scientific finding that 

carbon pollution poses a danger to the American public health and 

welfare? 

Mr. PRUITT. Two things, Senator. First, with respect to Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court said to the EPA that they had 

to make a decision. 

Senator MARKEY. That’s right. 
381 

Mr. PRUITT. To determine whether CO2 posed a risk, and as you 

indicated in 2009 they did so. That is the law of the land, those 

two cases. There is an obligation of the EPA Administrator to do 

his or her job in fulfilling Massachusetts v. EPA and that 

endangerment finding from 2009. 

Senator MARKEY. So you will keep that scientific finding on the 

books? 

Mr. PRUITT. That the endangerment finding is there and needs 

to be enforced and respected. 

Senator MARKEY. You will not review that scientific finding? 

Mr. PRUITT. There is nothing that I know that would cause a review at this point. 

Senator MARKEY. That’s very good. 

Massachusetts v. EPA made it possible for States like California 

and Massachusetts to set higher standards for the fuel economy of 

vehicles using their authority under the Clean Air Act. This is a 

powerful tool for States to reduce emissions and address global 

warming. 

As a direct result of the Clean Air Act authority combined with 

my 2007 fuel economy law the Obama administration reached a 

historic agreement, with the auto industry’s support, to increase 

fuel economy standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Those 

standards are projected to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 

more than 2 million barrels a day, prevent 6 billion tons of carbon 

pollution, and save consumers more than $1.7 trillion at the gas 

pump because their cars will be so much more efficient. 

Those standards are also unleashing a TESLA revolution, clean 

energy vehicles all across the country. Ten thousand people are 

going to be employed, for example, in Nevada in this technology 

area. 

You have said you want States to play a larger role in environmental regulation. In your 2015 testimony before the House 

Science Committee you wrote, ‘‘The EPA was never intended to be 

our Nation’s front line environmental regulator. The States were to 

have regulatory primacy.’’ But earlier today, you wouldn’t commit 

to maintaining California, Massachusetts, and other States’ ability 

to have regulatory primacy as the leaders of the effort to protect 

their own States to do what is best for global warming in their own 

States. 

So I am going to ask you again, will you support the statutory 

right of States to do more to reduce dependence on foreign oil, reduce global warming, pollution, save money at the gas pumps, and 

create tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of jobs in the 

clean car job business? 

Mr. PRUITT. I think, Senator, generally, the answer to that would 

be yes. But in application with the California waiver that was discussed earlier, that is an adjudicatory process that I can’t prejudge 

what would occur there. As you know previous Administrators have 

either granted or denied that based upon a record that was made. 

I do respect and do believe that States have a very important role. 

We’ve acknowledged that, or I have acknowledged that today with 

respect to the Chesapeake Bay situation, as an example. 
382 

I will look at that issue, like others, to make sure that it is respected but also is consistent with the statutory framework that 

you have outlined. 

Senator MARKEY. Do you support the law that says California 

has a right to ask for a waiver? 

Mr. PRUITT. It is statutory, and it is something the Administrator has an obligation to do. So yes, I do respect it. 

Senator MARKEY. Do you support the current California waiver 

for greenhouse gas standards? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, that is what would be evaluated. I think it 

is very difficult, and we shouldn’t prejudge the outcome in that regard if confirmed as Administrator. 

Senator MARKEY. So you are questioning the current waiver? You 

don’t think they’re entitled to the current waiver? 

Mr. PRUITT. The waiver is something that is granted on an annual basis. The Administrator would be responsible for making 

that decision. 

Senator MARKEY. You say you are going to review it? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, Senator. 

Senator MARKEY. When you say review, I hear undo the rights 

of the States. I think to a certain extent that is troublesome. Because obviously, what we have heard all day is how much you support States’ rights when it comes to these issues, but now when it 

comes to the right of California, Massachusetts, and other States 

to be able to reduce carbon pollution, you are saying you are going 

to review that. 

My problem really goes to this double standard that is created 

that when you sue, from the Oklahoma perspective, from the oil 

and gas industry perspective, and you represent Oklahoma, you 

say they have a right to do what they want to do in the State of 

Oklahoma. When it comes to Massachusetts or California, and it 

comes to the question of those States’ wanting to increase their 

protection of the environment, protect their victimization from carbon pollution, you say there you are going to review. 

I think the history of the agency in granting reviews that have 

been necessary for Massachusetts, for California, and other States 

to improve the environment are still valid. The science hasn’t 

changed, the new clean energy technologies have not changed, the 

danger to the public from environmental exposure to carbon pollution has not changed. So from our perspective, we are fearful of 

what a review would actually result in. From my perspective, I 

think it is going to lead to you undoing that right of the States to 

be able to provide that protection. 

Senator BARRASSO. The Senator’s time has expired. Thank you, 

Senator Markey. 

I am going to introduce for the record a report from the National 

Energy Assistance Directors Association. These are the State officials who oversee the financial assistance programs for people to 

heat their homes. 

The report says that when energy prices go up, higher energy 

prices result in 24 percent of the recipients who go without food for 

at least a day, 37 percent go without medical or dental care, 34 

percent didn’t fill a prescription, and 19 percent had someone in 
383 

their home become sick because the house was cold due to increased energy costs. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
384 

NATIONAL ENERGY ASSISTANCE 

DIRECTORS' ASSOCIATION 

2011 NATIONAL ENERGY ASSISTANCE SURVEY 

SUMMARY REPORT 

Final Report 

November 2011 
385 

The National Energy Assistance Directors' Association 

The National Energy Assistance Directors' Association (NEADA) represents the state directors 

of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). NEADA is a nonprofit 

educational and policy organization based in Washington, DC. Its mission is to support the 

delivery ofLIHEAP services by state agencies and programs. 

This report has been prepared by APPRISE for NEADA under Grant No. 90XP0249 through the 

Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations do not necessarily reflect 

the views of ACF. 

Jo-Ann Choate 

Chairman 

Mark Wolfe 

Executive Director 

NEADA 

Suite800 

1615 M Street, NW 

Wa$hington, D.C. Z0036 

202-237-5199 

www.neada.org 

NEADA National Energy Assistance Survey Report 

November 2011 
386 

Acknowledgements 

NEADA would like to thank the many individuals and organizations that provided assistance and 

time in developing this study and its findings. In particular, we would like to thank Jackie 

Berger, Matthew Swartz, Jennifer Frenett, and Colleen Driscoll of APPRISE for conducting tlle 

research and preparing the study report. We would like to th11nk Lynne Snyder of NEADA for 

guidance on questions related to health issues. We would like to thank the many people who 

took time to review and comment on the draft report. 

The study would not have been possible without the particip1ition of the directors and staff at the 

state LIHEAP offices in: 

California 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

Georgia 

Mark Wolfe 

Executive Director 

Iowa Montann 

Maine North Carolina 

Minnesota New Mexico 

National Energy Assistance Directors' Association 

NEAOA National Energy Assistance Survey Report 

November 2011 

New York 

Ohio 

Pennsylvania 
387 

Table of Contents 

Table of Contents 

Executive SuiiiiiilllJ' ................................................................................................................... i 

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ ! 

A. Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LUIEAP) .................................. .1 

B. 2011 National Energy Assistance Survey ................................................................ ! 

C. Organization of the Report ....................................................................................... 2 

II. Survey Methodology ............................................................................................................. 3 

A. Sm-vey Implementation ............................................................................................ 3 

B. Sample Selection and Response Rates ....... -.............................................................. 3 

lll. LlHEAP Recipient Households .......................................................................................... .4 

IV. Problems Meeting Energy Needs ........................................................................................ 6 

A. Increased Utility Bills and Increased Need .............................................................. 6 

B. Signs ofthe Problem ................................................................................................ B 

C. Responses to the Problem ........................................................................................ 8 

D. Inability to Pay Energy Bills .................................................................................... 9 

E. HousingProblems .................................................................................................. lO 

F. Medical and Health Problems ................................................................................ 1 0 

V. Conclusion ...... , ................................................................................................................... 12 

NEADA National Energy Assistance Survey Report 

November 2011 
388 

Executtvo summary 

Executive Summary 

The National Energy Assistance Directors' Association (NEADA), representing the state 

LIHEAP directors, received a grant through the Administration for Children and Families {ACF), 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to update the information about LIHEAPrecipient households that was collected in the 2003, 2005, 2008 and 2009 NEA Surveys. This 

survey documented changes in the affordability of energy bills, the need for LlliEAP, and the 

choices that low-income households make when faced with unaffordable energy bills. 

The 2011 Survey included 13 states with an oversample in Connecticut, as in the 2009 Survey. 

Stratified samples of fiscal year 2011 LIHEAP recipients were chosen from each of the state 

UHEAP databases. This report presents the findings from the 2011 NEA Survey and provides 

comparisons to the 2003, 2008, and 2009 NEA Surveys. The survey and report were prepared 

for NEADA by APPRISE. 

During the period of study, low-income households across the c.ountry continued to face a 

difficult economic climate and continued to deal with high energy costs. The survey 

substantiated these issues - showing that 35 percent were unemployed at some point duripg the 

year and that 52 percent reported it was more difficult to pay energy bills than it was the previous 

year. 

LIHEAP Recipient Households 

The study confmned that LIHEAP recipient households are likely to be vulnerable to 

temperantre extremes. 

• 40 percent had a senior in the household aged 60 or older. 

• 42 percent had a disabled household member. 

• 41 percent had a child 18 or younger. 

• 89 percent had at least one vulnerable household member. 

The study also provided information on challenges that these households faced. 

• 35 percent were unemployed at some point during the previous year. 

72 percent had a serious medical condition. 

• 26 percent used medical equipment that requires electricity. 

Energy Costs 

LIHEAP recipients reported that they faced high energy costs. 

• 45 percent reported that their energy bills were more than $2,000 in the past year. 

NEADA NaHonal Energy Assislanre Survey Report 

November 2011 

Pagel 
389 

Elecutive Summary 

Pre-LIHEAP energy burden averaged 16 percent and post-LIHBAP energy burden averaged 

12 percent for these households, compared to 7 percent for all households in the U.S. and 4 

percent for nOll low-income households in the U.S.1 

52 percent said that energy bills were more difficult to pay than in the previous year. 

48 percent of those who said that it was more difficult to pay their energy bills reported that 

the main reason was their financial situation. 

LIHEAP benefits decreased since the previous year due to the smaller appropriation in FY 2011. 

Mean heating benefits were $429 in FY 2011, compared to $483 in FY 2009. 

Responses to lUgh Energy Costs 

Households reported that they took several actions to make ends meet. 

39 percent closed off part of their horne. 

23 percent kept their home at a temperature that was unsafe or unhealthy. 

• 21 percent left their home for part of the day. 

33 percent used their kitchen stove or oven to provide heat. 

Inability to Pay Energy Bills 

Many LIHEAP recipients were unable to pay their energy bills. 

• 49 percent skipped paying or paid less than their entire home energy bill. 

• 37 percent received a notice or threat to disconnect or discontinue their electricity or home 

heating fuel. 

11 percent had their electric or natural gas service shut off in the past year due to 

nonpayment. 

• 24 percent were unable to use their main source of heat in the past year because their fuel 

was shut off, they could not pay for fuel delivery, or their heating system was broken aild 

they could not afford to fiX it. 

17 percent were unable to use their air conditioner in the past year because their electricity 

was shut off or their air conditioner was broken and they could not afford to fix it. 

Housing and Financial Problems 

Many LIHEAP recipients had problems paying for housing in the past five years, due at least 

partly to their energy bills. 

31 percent did not make their full mortgage or rent payment. 

6 percent were evicted from their home or apartment. 

• 4 percent had a foreclosure on their mortgage. 

14 percent moved in with friends or family. 

• 4 percent moved into a shelter or were homeless. 

1 SO\lrce: 2008 UHEAP Notebook. 

NEAOA National El1ergy Assistance Survey Report 

November 2011 Pageii 
390 

Executive Summary 

13 percent got a payday loan in the past five years. 

Medical and Health Problems 

Man~th~EAP tJicli)ients ed;ign~medical~th pr~n t~ ~ yet!1"s, p)l!1fy as a r~ofbig nergy c¢( 

• 37 percent~cnt without med1cal or dental care. 

[

• 24 percc~:C~:t~~ food for at least one day. 

• 34 percent,._ did not fill a prescription or took less than the full dose of a prescribed 

medica lion. 

• I 9 pcrccn~ad someone in the home become sick because the home was too cold. 

The Need for LIHEAP 

Households reported enormous challenges despite the fact that they received LIHEAP. 

However, they reported that LIHEAP was extremely important. 

65 percent of those who did not keep their home at unsafe or unhealthy temperatures said 

they would have done so if LIHEAP had not been available. 

63 percent of those who did not have their electricity or home heating fuel discontinued said 

that they would have if it had not been for LIHEAP. 

It is clear that many of these households will continue to need LIHEAP to meet their energy and 

other essential needs. 

NEADA National Energy Assistance Survey Report 

November 2011 

Page in 
391 

Introduction 

I. Introduction 

The National Energy Assistance Directors' Association (NEADA), representing the state 

LrnEAP directors, received a grant through the Administration for Children and Families 

(ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to update the information about 

LIHEAP-recipient households that was collected in the 2003, 2005, 2008, and 2009 NEA 

Surveys. This survey documented changes in the affordability of energy bills, the need for 

LIHEAP, and the choices that low-income households make when faced with unaffordable 

energy bills. 

The 2011 NEA Survey selected a new sample of 2011 LlHEAP recipients to document 

changes in the need for LIHEAP and changes in the choices that low-income households 

make when faced with unaffordable energy bills. This report presents the findings from the 

20ll NEA Survey and provides comparisons to the 2003, 2008 and 2009 NEA Surveys. 

The survey and report were prepared for NEADA by APPRISE. 

A. Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) 

The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program {LIHEAP} is administered by the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), The purpose of LIHEAP is "to assist 

low-income households, particularly those with the lowest incomes, that pay a high 

proportion of household income for home energy, primarily in meeting their immediate 

home energy needs." The L!HEAP statute defines boone energy as "a source of heating or 

cooling in residential dwellings.'., 

Federal dollars for LIHEAP are allocated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services to the grantees (i.e., the 50 states, District of Columbia, 128 tribes and tribal 

organi<:ations, and five insular areas) as a block grant. Program funds are distributed by a 

fonnula, which is weighted towards relative cold-weather conditions. 

B. 2011 National Energy Assistance Survey 

Tite 2011 NEA Survey aimed to update the information about LIHEAP-recipient households 

that was collected in the 2003, 2008, and 2009 NEA Sutveys. Stratified samples of 2011 

LIHEAP recipients were selected to collect new information about the consequences of high 

energy bills for low.income households. The 2011 National Energy Assistance Survey 

collected the following infomtation from LIHEAP-recipient households: 

• Demographic, e11ergy expenditure, and income infom1ation 

• Healthy home behaviors 

l The statutory intent ofLIHEAP is to reduce borne heating and cooling costs for low-income households. However, 

iofonnation on total residential energy costs is more acce81lible and more apparent to UHEAP-recipient respondents. 

Moreover, any reduction in home heating ond cooling costs leads to a direct reduction in total residential energy 

costs. Therefore, this repon l!ddresses total te5identin! energy costs. 

NEADA National Energy Assistance Survey Report 

November 2011 

Page 1 
392 

lntroduetion 

• History ofLIHEAP participation 

• Constructive actions taken to meet energy expenses 

• Signs of unaffordable energy bills 

• Health and safety consequences of unaffordable energy bills 

• Effects of unaffordable energy bills on housing 

• Changes in financial situation and affordability of horne energy bills 

• Impact and importance of LIHEAP benefits for recipient households 

The 20 II Survey included the 13 states that were included in the 2009 Survey and a larger 

sample Of CT LIHEAP recipients, as a result of additional funding that was allocated for a 

special study in CT. 

C. Organization of the Report 

This report has four sections that follow this introduction. 

• Section II: Survey Methodology: Presents the methodology used. 

• Section Ill: LIHEAP Recipients: Presents demographic and income infomiation 

LIHEAP-recipient households that completed the 2011 NEA Survey. 

• Section IV: Problems Faced in Meeting Energy Needs: Presents information about 

actions that LIHEAP-recipient households take to meet their energy needs, household 

necessities, and health and well ness in the face of significant financial constraints. 

• Section V.· Co ~~elusion: Presents a summary of tlte key findings in this report. 

NEADA National E0919y Assistance Survey Report 

November 2011 

Page2 
393 

Survey MethodQioiJY 

ll. Survey Methodology 

This section swmnarizes the methodology for the 20 ll NEA Survey. 

A. Survey Implementation 

A survey advance letter was sent to the sample ofLIHEAP recipients. This letter announced 

the survey, explained the purpose of the survey, and gave potential respondents the option to 

call the phone center to complete the survey. 

Telephone interviews were conducted between May 2, 20 II and July 3, 20 II. During this 

time period, 1,768 interviews were completed. 

B. Sample Selection and Response Rates 

LIHEAP recipients were selected from each of the 13 states chosen to participate in the 

survey. Because of a special congressional earmark for Connecticut, a special study was 

conducted for Connecticut. 

Table II-I displays the number of interviews completed by state. The response rate ranged 

from 41 percent in New York to 69 percent in New Mexico. 

Table Il-l 

Number of Completed Interviews by State 

Stale Total Selected 

California 260 

Connecticut 1,290 

Delaware 220 

Georgia 220 

low .a 220 

Maine 220 

Minnc•ota 220 

Montana 220 

New Meslco 220 

New York 450 

N orlh Carolina 270 

Ohio 220 

l'eonsylvaula 220 

TOTAL 4,250 

NEADA National Energy Assisfanca SuNey Report 

November 2011 

Completed RespQnse Rate Interviews 

103 48% 

495 48% 

!00 63% 

105 59% 

102 65% 

133 68% 

105 60% 

102 62% 

102 69% 

101 41% 

97 60% 

Ill 67% 

ll2 62% 

1,768 56% 

Page 3 
394 

LIHEAP Recipient Housellolds 

ill. LlliEAP Recipient Households 

The 2011 National Energy Assistance Survey included a series of questions about household 

demographics. 

Table ill-1 displays information on the presence of vulnerable household members. The 

table shows that 40 percent have a senior in the home, 42 percent have a disabled household 

member, 41 percent have a child age 18 or younger, and 21 percent have a child age five or 

younger. Eight-nine percent had at least one vulnerable member {elderly, disabled, or 

child). 

SenlorJ::60 

Yes 40% 

No 59% 

Don't Know/ Refused 2% 

Table 111-1 

Vulnernble Groups 

Disabled Chlld$18 

42% 41% 

56% 58% 

2% 2% 

Young Child $5 Single Parent 

21% 15% 

78% 85% 

2% -

Table lll-2 displays the annual household income distribution for LIHEAP-recipient 

households. The table shows that 36 perce11t have income of less than or equal to $10,000 

and only two percent have income above $40,000. 

Table lll·Z 

Annual Income 

Annualln~ome Percent of Respondents 

::s s 10,000 36% 

s 16,00 l -s 10,000 41% 

s 10,001 -s 30,000 16% 

S 30,00 I • S 40,000 S% 

More than $ 40,000 2% 

Don'tKnow 1% 

Table 111-3 shows that I 9 percent had. income at or below 50 percent of the poverty level 

and 6! percent had income at or below the poverty level. Only 11 percent had income 

above !50 pllreent of the poverty level. 

NEADA Na~ona! Energy Assistance S\!Mly Report 

November 2011 

Page4 
395 

Tab)., 111-3 

Poverty Level 

Po,·erty Level Pet"cent of Rupondents 

0%-SO% 19"1. 

§1%·100% 42% 

101 %·125"/o 15% 

116·%-150"/o 13% 

>1!!0% 11% 

LIHEAP Recipient Households 

Respondents were asked whether they had been unemployed at sotne time during the year. 

Table HI-4 shows that 35 percent reported that they had been unemployed at some point 

during the past year. This compares to 31 percent in 2003, 29 percent in 2008, and 36 

percent in 2009. 

Yes 

No 

Doa't Know I Refused 

TableUI-4 

Unemployed During tbe Year 

2003 2008 

31% 29% 

69% 70% 

0% !•;. 

2009 lOll 

36% 35% 

63% 62% 

1% 3% 

Table UI-5 displays the percent of respondents who were unemployed during the past year 

by vulnerable group. The table shows that households with children under 18 and nonvulnerable households were most likely to report that they had been unemployed. Fifty. 

three percent ofhollSeholds with children reported that they had been unemployed. 

Table III-5 

Unewplo}'ed During the Year 

By Vulnerable Group 

Senior Disabled Child $18 

Number of Respondents 

Yes 

No 

Don't Know I Refused 

NEADA Nationat Enef9Y Assislance Survey Report 

NO'Ielllber2011 

705 

17% 

&1% 

2% 

738 722 

26% 53% 

72% 46% 

l% 1% 

NonVulnerable 

195 

49% 

35% 

15% 

PageS 
396 

Problems Meeting Energy Needs 

IV. Problems Meeting Energy Needs 

This section examines the financial challenges and difficult choices made by the LIHEAP 

recipients to manage their total residentiai energy costs. 

A. Increased Utility Bills and Increased Need 

Respondents were asked to report their annual energy costs. Table IV -I shows that 45 

percent of the respondents reported that their bills were over $2,000. 

Table JV-1 

Ann011l Total Residential Energy Costs 

Annual Energy Cost~ Pen:cnt of Respondents 

LeSI than $500 2% 

~01- $1,000 8% 

51,001- $1,500 10% 

51,501 - S2,000 12% 

Over Sl,OOO 45% 

Don 'I Know/Refused 22% 

Table IV-2 displays the distribution of LIHEAP heating benefits in FY2008, FY2009 and 

FY2011. Twenty-eight percent received $250 or Jess in FY20ll, compared with 18 percent 

who received $250 or less in FY2009. 

TEibleJV-2 

LIHEAP Heating Benefits Distribution 

Percent Received 

Benefit Amount 1008 2009 2011 

Number of Respondents 1,256 1,828 1,667 

!: 5100 6% lli ill 

$101-$250 ru& 13% m 

$251-$500 ~ 45% ~ 

$501-$7511 ~ 1rl:! 15% 

$7Sl-Sl,OOO 6% 7% 6% 

~ $1,000 lli 6% lli 

Did Not Reeelve Heating Benent ~ q% lli 

Note. 2011 statiStically SJgJuficnnt d1fferenees at the 95% level from 2008 

and 2009 are underlined. 

NEADA National Energy Assistance Survey Report 

November 2011 

Page6 
397 

Problems Meeting Energy Needs 

Pre-LIHEAP energy burden was calculated by dividing the respondentli' energy costs by 

their total household income and post-LIHEAP energy burden was calculated by subtracting 

LIHEAP benefits from energy costs and then dividing these 11et energy costs by total 

household income. Table IV-3 shows that LIHEAP benefits had a big impact on the 

households' energy burden. Prior to receiving LIHEAP, 22 percent of households had an 

energy burden higher than 20 percent. After receiving LIHBAP, l3 percent had an energy 

burden that was this high. Additionally, LIHEAP benefits increased the percentage with 

burdens below five percent from 9 percent of recipients to 26 percent 

Table IV-3 

Total Residential Energy Burden 

Total Rosidantlal Energy Burden I 

Pre-Ll HEAP Post-LlHEAP I 

Number of Respondents 1,275 1,:m 

o-5% 9% 26% 

6%-lC% 32% 32% 

11-15% 23% 20% 

16-20% 13% 9% 

21-25% 9% 5% 

>25% 13% 8% 

Respondents were asked whether they had a more or less difficult time paying their energy 

bills in the past year, as compared to the previous year. Table IV -4 shows that 52 percent 

said d1ey had a more difficult time and 12 percent said they had a less difficult time. 

Table IV-4 

Change in Difficulty in Paying Energy Bills 

Change In Difftcully In Percent ()f Respondents PaviiU! EnCI'I!V Bills 

More Diilh:ult 52% 

Same 31% 

Len Difficult 12% 

~ow!Refoued 5% 

Respondents who said that they had a more difficult time paying their energy bills were 

asked why it was more difficult. Table IV-5 shows that 48 percent said it was due to a 

worse financial situation and 42 percent said it was due to an increased energy bill. 

NEADA National Energy Assistance Survey Report 

November 2011 

Page 7 
398 

Problems MeeUng EMrgy Naed9 

Table IV-5 

Reasons for Increased Difficulty In Paying Energy Bills 

MainReasnn 

(Unprompted) 

Number or Respondents 940 

Lower lneomeJLost Job/ 48% Worse Economic Situation 

1 nereaaed Energy Bill 42% 

Increased Other Billa 6% 

Increased Medi<al Expenses 2% 

Other 1% 

Don't Know/Refused 1% 

B. Signs of the Problem 

Respondents were asked whether they reduced expenses for household necessities due to not 

having enough money to pay their energy bill during the past year. Table lV-6 compares 

responses to questions about signs of unaffordable energy bills for the 2003, 2008, 2009 and 

2011 surveys. The table shows that approximately the same percentage of respondents 

faced these problems in all three years. 

Table IV-6. 

Signs of the Problem 

Comparison of Survey Results 

2003 2008 

Number of Respondents 2,161 1,256 

Reduced Expenses for 78% 80% Household Necessities 

C. Responses to the Problem 

1009 lOll 

1,828 1,768 

79% 72% 

This section examines how households have responded to the problem of \Ulaffordable 

energy bills. Table IV-7 shows that the following percent of households faced these 

problems in 2011. 

• 39 percent closed off part of their home. 

• 23 percent kept their home at a temperature that they felt was unsafe or unhealthy. 

• 21 percent left their home for part of the day. 

• 33 percent used their kitchen stove or oven to provide heat 

The percentages are approximately the same as in 2009. 

NEADA National Energy Asslatance Survey Report 

November 2011 

Page8 
399 

Problems Mealing Energy Needs 

Number of Respondents 

Closed orr Part of Home 

TableiV-7 

Responses to the Problem 

Comparison of Survey Results 

1003 2068 

2,161 1,256 

39% ~ 

Kept !:lome at Temperature You Felt was rut. m9. Unsafe or Unbcnlthv 

Lert Rome for Part of lhe Day ~ 23% 

Used Kllcbcn Stove or Oven to Provide Heat 31% 33% 

2009 ZOII 

1,828 1,768 

36% m! 

26% 1lli 

20% 21% 

33% 33% .. Note: 2011 stausucally slgmficaut differences at the 95% level from 2003,2008 and 2009 are underlmcd. 

D. Inability to Pay Energy Bills 

Respondents were asked several questions about the inability to pay their home energy bill. 

Table IV-8 shows that the following percent ofhouseholds faced these problems in 2011. 

• 49 percent skipped paying or paid less than their entire home energy bill. 

• 3 7 percent received a notice or threat to disconnect or discontinue electricity service or 

home heating fuel. 

• II percent had their electricity or gas shut off due to nonpayment. 

• l3 percent were unable to use their heating system because it was broken and they could 

not afford to pay for repair or rep!acen1ent. 

• 14 percent were unable to use their air conditioner because it was broken and they were 

unable to pay for its repair or replacement. 

Table IY-8 

lnabiUty to Pay Energy Bills During Past Year 

Comparison of Survey Results 

Number of Respondents 

Sldpped Paying or Paid Less than Entire Home Energy 

Bill 

Reeeived Notice or Threat to Dlsconneot or Discontinue 

Electricitv or Home Heatin!l Fuel 

Elettrlclty Sbut off Due to Nonpayment 

Gas Shut off Due to Nonpayment 

Electridty or Gas Shut off Due to Nonpayment 

Heating System Broken and Unable to Pay for Repair or 

Replacement 

Unable to Usc Main Source of Heat Because Unable to 

Pav for a Fuel Dellverv 

Unable to Usc Main Source of Heat Because UtiUty 

Company Discontinued Gas or Electric Service Due to 

Nonpayment 

NEADA National Energy Assistance Survey Report 

November 2011 

2003 2008 

2,161 1,256 

52% 47% 

38% 37% 

8% 9% 

- 6% 

- 12% 

10% !3% 

10% 13% 

llli llli 

2009 2011 

1,828 1,768 

SO% 49% 

36% 37% 

9% 9% 

7% 6% 

12% 11% 

13% ~ 

ll% 10% 

I!% :lli 

Page9 
400 

Problems Maatlng Energy Needs 

2003 2008 2009 ~011 

Number·or Respondents 2,161 1.256 1,828 1,768 

Unable to Use Air Conditioner Because It was Broken 12% !2% 12% 14% and Unable to· Pay for Repair or Replacement 

Unable to Usc Air Conditioner Because Utility Company 6% lli lli lli Dlseontinued Eleetrlc Service Due to Nonpayment 

Had to Use Candles or Lanterns Due to Lack of Lights lli lli lli lli .. Note: 20 II statisttcaHy stgmficant differences at the 95% level from 2003, 2008, and 2009 are underlmed. 

E. Housing Problems 

This section examines housing problems that respondents have faced in the past five years 

due to unaffordable energy bills. Table IV-9 shows that the following percent of 

respondents faced these problems. 

• 31 percent did not make a full rent or mortgage payment. 

• 14 percent moved in with friends or family. 

• 4 percent moved into a shelter or were homeless. 

TableiV-9 

Housing Problems During Past Five Years 

Comparison of Survey Results 

2003 2008 

Number of Respondents 2,161 1,256 

Did Not Make Full Rent or Mortgage Payment ~ 28% 

Evicted from Homt or Apartmetii lli lli 

Moved in with Friends or Family 9"Ao ~ 

Moved Into Shelter or Was Homeless 4% 3% 

1009 2011 

1,828 1,768 

31% ll% 

S% ~ 

12% 14% 

3% 4% 

Note: 20 II stal!sllcally s1gmficant differences at the 95% level from 2003, 2008 and 2009 are underlmed. 

F. Medical and Health Problems 

This section examines the medical and health problems that respondents faced in the past 

five years due to unaffordable energy bills. Table IV-10 shows that the following percent of 

households faced these problems. 

• 24 percent went without food for at least one day 

• 3 7 percent went without medical or dental care 

• 34 percent did not fill a prescription or took less than their full dose of prescribed 

medication. 

• 19 percent became sick because the home was too cold. 

• 6 percent became sick because the home was too hot. 

NEAOA National Energy Assistance Survey Report 

November 2011 

Page 10 
401 

Problems Meeting Energy Needs 

TablelV-10 

Medical and Uealth Problems Duriog the Past Five Years 

Comparlsoo of Survey Results 

1003 2008 

Number of Respondents 2,161 i 1,256 

Went Without Food for At Least One Day 22% .mR 

Weal Without Medl<al or Dental Care 38% .4lli 

Did Not Fill Prescription or Took Less Tban Full Dose m ~ 

Beclll11e SICk Bceause Home wms Too Cold 21% 24% 

Be.ame Sick Because Home was Too Hot 7% 6% 

1009 lOll 

1,828 1,768 

lll% 2.ili. 

illi. rru 

33% ;!lli 

~ 1m 

lli. lli . . Note: 2011 staiJsttcally stgmficant dtfferenccs at the 95% level from 201l3, 2008 and 2009 are underlmed . 

NEADA National Energy As5istance Survey Report 

Nowmber 2011 

Page 11 
402 

Conclusion 

V. Conclusion 

The 2011 NEADA study continued that LIHEAP recipient households are likely to be 

vulnerable to temperature extremes. They !lie likely to have seniors, disabled members, or 

children in the home. Over 89 percent of LIHEAP recipients had at least one of these vulnerable 

household members. The study also showed that these households face many challenges in 

addition to their energy bills, including unemployment, unhealthy home conditions, and medical 

issues. 

Energy Costs 

LlliEAP recipients reported that they faced high energy costs. Forty-five percent of the 

respondents reported energy costs over $2,000 in the past year and 52 percent said that their 

energy bills were more difficult to pay. Almost half of those who said that their energy bills 

were more difficult to pay said that the increased difficulty was due to a worsened financial 

situation. 

Responses to High Energy Costs 

Households reported that they took several actions to make ends meet, including closing off part 

of the home and leaving the home for part of the day. Some of the actions were unsafe and could 

lead to injury or illness, such as keeping the home at a temperature that was unsafe or unhealthy 

or using the kitchen stove or oven to provide heat. 

Inability to Pay Energy Bills 

Despite the assistance that they received, many LIHEAP recipients were unable to pay their 

energy bills. Almost half of the respondents reported that they had skipped paying or paid less 

than their entire home energy bill in the past. year and more than one third said that they received 

a notice or tlueat to disconnect or discontinue their electricity or home heating fuel. 

Households went without utility service and sacrificed heating and cooling their home. Eleven 

percent had their ell;ctric or natural gas service shut off in the past year due to nonpayment. 

Almost one quarter reported that they Wc:Te unable to use their mai11 source of heat in the past 

year because their fuel was shut off, they could not pay for fuel delivery, or their beating system 

was broken and they could not afford to fix it. Seventeen percent reported that they were unable 

to use their air conditioner in the past year because their electricity was shut off or their air 

conditioner was broken and they could not afford to fix it. 

Housing and Financial Problems 

Many LIHEAP recipients had problems paying for ~ousing in the past five years, due at least 

partly to their energy bills. Almost one third did not make their full mortgage or rent paymenL 

Six percent were evicted from their home or apartment and four percent had a foreclosure on 

their mortgage. 

NEADA National Energy Assistance Surve~ Report 

Nov~mber 2011 

Page 12 
403 

Conclusion 

Medical and Health Problems 

Many of the LIHEAP recipients faced significant medical and health problems in the past five 

years, partly as a result of high energy costs. Nearly one quarter reported that they went without 

food, 37 percent sacrificed medical/dental care, and one fifth had someone in the home become 

sick because the home was too cold. 

The Need for LIHEAP 

Households reported enormous challenges despite the fact that they received LlHEAP. 

However, they reported that LIHEAP was extremely important. Many reported that they would 

have kept their home at unsafe or unhealthy temperatures and/or had their electricity or home 

heating fuel discontinued if it had not been for LIHEAP. 

It is clear that many of these households will continue to need LIHEAP to meet their energy and 

other essential needs. 

NEADA National Energy Assistance Survey Report 

November 2011 

Page 13 
404 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Ernst. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, Attorney General Pruitt, thank you for being here today. 

I would like to go back to something a colleague, Senator 

Duckworth, mentioned earlier today, and that is the point of obligation. The proposal to change the point of obligation under the 

RFS is an example of regulatory change that would destabilize the 

policy environment if adopted. What is interesting with the point 

of obligation, we have two sides that normally oppose each other 

that have actually come together. Both biofuel producers and the 

American Petroleum Institute oppose this change, both groups. 

I would like to submit a letter for the record showing the united 

opposition to moving the point of obligation. Mr. Chair, if we could 

have that entered into the record? 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced letter follows:] 
405 

The Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Administrator 

Environmental Protection Agency 

November 30, 2016 

William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Administrator McCarthy, 

The undersigned associations represent a significant majority of participants across the 

United States' transportation fuels value chain. While each association has an individual, unique 

position- often conflicting- regarding the broader Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program, we 

write to express our unified position in opposition to efforts by petitioners to move the point of 

obligation for RFS compliance. It is unprecedented for all of these undersigned groups to unite in 

a single letter to express a uniformly held position. 

Each of the undersigned associations strongly supports the Environmental Protection 

Agency's (EPA) proposed denial of petitions for a rulemaking to change the point of obligation 

under the RFS. There is no sound public policy rationale tor moving the point of obligation and 

further, such a change would add complexity and uncertainty to the current RFS program. 

We urge EPA to finalize its conclusion and deny the petitions to move the point of 

obligation. 

Sincerely, 

A<M,ced 

Blafuels 

Asso<iat(on 

~C:S. 

~RE~ ~ RENEWAI3U:: 

FUEL'i 

;J ASSOCIATIO~ 

~~ 1t lrl growth energy 
406 

Senator ERNST. I’d like to revisit this. If you can, yes or no, as 

Administrator, will you oppose changes to the point of obligation? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, as I indicated in my meeting with you, and 

I think in response to Senator Duckworth earlier, there is a comment period in process now at the EPA about the point of obligation. I think prejudging the outcome of that process at this point 

is unwise. 

I can say to you as I said to you in the office, any steps that I 

would take as EPA Administrator with respect to any issues as far 

as the RNS program, the Monitor Net Program, point of obligation, 

all these various issues that we discussed, the job of the EPA Administrator is to make sure that the statute is upheld and enforced 

and not undermined. The vitality of the RFS Program has been defined by Congress dating back to 2005. Any steps the EPA Administrator takes need to be done in such a way to further the objectives of Congress in that statute, not undermine the objectives of 

Congress in that statute. 

Senator ERNST. I do appreciate your being objective. I am sure 

that Senator Duckworth and I will look forward to continuing to 

educate you on those issues. Thank you very much. 

I would like to show a chart of the State of Iowa. I would like 

to go back to some of Senator Cardin’s comments about who should 

define what the expanded definition of Waters of the U.S. is. This 

is a chart of the State of Iowa. As you can see, with the expanded 

definition, as provided by the EPA, 97 percent of the State of Iowa 

is now considered Waters of the U.S. If you are in area like mine 

in southwest Iowa here, I live in a Water of the U.S. Most of the 

State is covered by the waters of the U.S. I bring that up, because 

in a moment, I am going to show you another picture of the consequences of the EPA defining what a Water of the U.S. is. 

Last Congress this Committee examined the scope of the Federal 

Clean Water Act jurisdiction EPA and the Corps of Engineers 

claim today, even without the new WOTUS Rule. The committee 

found that EPA and the Corps are already expanding their jurisdiction using the concepts that they codified in WOTUS. They are just 

doing it on a case by case basis. 

The jurisdictional claims already being made are very troubling. 

For example, the Obama EPA told the public that they will not regulate puddles. They will not regulate puddles. However, we learned 

that the Corps is already regulating puddles by claiming that a 

puddle in a gravel parking lot is ‘‘a degraded wetland.’’ A degraded 

wetland. 

The Obama EPA also told farmers not to worry about being regulated because ordinary farming activities have a statutory exemption. We learned that the Corps of Engineers and the Department 

of Justice have decided that plowing is not an ordinary farming activity. Explain that to my dear deceased grandfather and my father 

whose activities in farming include plowing. 

According to the Obama administration, any plowing that pushes 

soil into furrows is not an exempt farming activity because the tops 

of plowed furrows can dry out. According to a brief filed by the 

United States, ‘‘the furrow tops now serve as small mountain 

ranges.’’ Right there, folks, small mountain ranges. ‘‘These furrow 

tops now provide conditions that are not conducive to growth and 
407 

development of wetland plant species. They are mini-uplands.’’ This 

is a picture of these small mountain ranges from the Government’s 

expert report. 

Mr. Pruitt, will you commit to me that if confirmed, EPA will 

work with the Corps and DOJ to make sure that Federal agencies 

stop trying to regulate ordinary farming practices? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, Senator. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you for that very concise answer. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Ernst. 

Senator Duckworth. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pruitt, I want to come back to this question again. Let me 

just tell you, I played second base as well. This is a hanging curve 

ball. You can knock this out of the park with a yes. 

Will you commit, yes or no, to reversing the EPA’s current interpretation that available infrastructure should limit the requirements to blend biofuels into our fuel supply, given that it runs 

counter to congressional intent? 

Mr. PRUITT. I don’t want to take any steps to undermine the objectives in the statute of the RFS as Administrator of EPA. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Will you commit to opposing any attempts 

to move the point of obligation from the farmer, the soybean producers, the corn producers and biofuel manufacturers away from 

them and toward the blenders? Because that would be counter to 

congressional intent. 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, that is something, as I have indicated, that 

there is an open comment period on that very issue. If confirmed, 

I would be dealing with that issue and need to respond to the comments that have been made as part of the record. It would be unwise to prejudge that outcome. I can say to you that any steps that 

I would take as Administrator would be in furtherance of the RFS 

and not to undermine the RFS. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. But the comment period has nothing to do 

with congressional intent. Earlier today you said you would abide 

by congressional intent. The congressional intent is to keep that 

point of obligation with the soybean and corn producers and the 

biofuel manufacturers and not to move away from it, regardless of 

what the open comment period says. So you are saying that you are 

willing, that your answer is no, because you would be open to moving it away from the soybean and corn growers, the farmers, toward the blenders if that is what comes out of the comment period? 

Is that what you are saying? That would be against congressional 

intent, though. 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, I think with respect to congressional intent 

and the statute, the intent, as far as the point of obligation, is not 

addressed in the statute itself. That is a decision and the Administrator has been involved in that process historically. It’s been subject to much discussion. In fact the EPA has dealt with this issue 

before. 

What I am saying to you is, it is the job of the Administrator to 

enforce the program, to administer the program, to ensure that the 

intent of Congress as far as the RFS is upheld. I will do that. 
408 

To prejudge the outcome of that particular comment period is 

something that I can’t do and shouldn’t do at this point. I would 

need to respond to that only after being confirmed and going 

through the rest of the process. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. You’re saying that you would be open to 

moving the point of obligation away from the corn and soybean producers and the ethanol manufacturers, if that is what the open 

comment period says? If that is the result, then you would be open 

to moving it away from the farmers? 

Mr. PRUITT. No. I am saying, Senator, that any actions taken as 

Administrator that would jeopardize and endanger the RFS as intended by Congress, I would not take. That is different from prejudging an outcome in that particular matter. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. But the intent of Congress is to keep the 

point of obligation with the producers. 

Mr. PRUITT. That’s something I am not aware of, Senator. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. OK. Let’s move on. I am very concerned, 

and we will follow up with this in the future. 

Let’s go to safe drinking water. I sat on the Government and 

Oversight Committee in the House where in a bipartisan manner 

we explored what happened in Flint, Michigan. I was actually flabbergasted earlier today when in response to my colleague, Senator 

Cardin, on whether you believe there is any safe level of lead that 

children can consume, you responded by saying, ‘‘Senator, that is 

not something I have reviewed or know about. I believe there is 

some concern but I have not looked into the scientific research on 

that.’’ 

You are about to become the EPA Administrator. You are seeking to be the EPA Administrator, and you’ve not looked into the 

issue of lead in our drinking water supply? I think that is something, especially in the aftermath of Flint, that is a serious oversight on your part. Have you even studied the Flint water crisis in 

preparing for this hearing? Do the names Mary Gade and Susan 

Hedman ring a bell to you? 

Mr. PRUITT. In the situation in Flint, as I indicated earlier, the 

EPA should have acted more expeditiously in responding to Flint 

and did not. There was indication at the regional level that there 

were concerns, and there was not a response. 

I think that the EPA bears responsibility for what happened in 

Flint and would seek to, in the future, avoid those kinds of situations by being more proactive through the regional administrators 

and the States and municipalities in ensuring the quality of our 

drinking water. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. As EPA Administrator will you commit to 

appointing a permanent regional administrator to the Midwest region based out of Chicago, but they cover Michigan? We have 

issues with lead in Galesburg, Illinois, for example. And will you 

give them the responsibility and the ability to act proactively so 

that they can step in when they see that the State is not doing its 

job in protecting the safe water drinking supply for its citizens? 

Mr. PRUITT. As you know, Senator, the answer is yes. The EPA 

has emergency order authority to respond to situations like you describe. I think the EPA should step in, in those situations in a very 

meaningful way. 
409 

Senator DUCKWORTH. That’s good news, because they did not do 

it in the case of Flint. 

Thank you. 

I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. 

I would like to introduce for the record an article from The Oklahoman by Rick Green that says J.D. Strong, Director of the State 

Wildlife Conservation Department, says of Attorney General Pruitt, 

‘‘Attorney General Pruitt has been a really good partner and ally 

in making sure we have adequate protections in place for the quality and quantity of water,’’ said Strong, who previously led the 

Oklahoma Water Resources Board and was State Secretary of the 

Environment. ‘‘I have never seen him put us in a position where 

we had to compromise anything to protect the waters of Oklahoma.’’ 

[The referenced information follows:] 
410 

MIMI! II 

The Oklahoman: Oklahoma officials support Pruitt for EPA and 

have their own problems with federal regulators 

Rick Green, Oklahoman Reporter 

Published: Monday, Jan. 2, 2017 

The head of the Sierra Club says selecting Attorney General Scott Pruitt as administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency is like "appointing Darth Vader to lead the Rebel Alliance." 

But within Oklahoma, the state's top prosecutor gets high marks from environmental officials. 

In tapping Pruitt for the Cabinet-level post, President-elect Donald Trump picked someone who rails 

against federal overreach and has sued the EPA. 

Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, used the Darth Vader comparison. He also 

compared Pruitt to an arsonist being put in charge of fighting fires. 

"Pruitt is not only a climate science denier and fossil fuel apologist, he's cast himself as a sworn 

enemy of the very agency he would be in charge of," Brune said. 

t State environmental officials, on the other hand, like the idea of Pruitt leading the EPA. They have 

~<~' their own problems with federal regulators. 

~ J.D. Strong, director of the slate Wildlife Conserva~on Department, said states are in a better position 

to protect the environment than federal officials . 

.:1 have never seen him put us in a position where we had to compromise anything to protect the 

waters of Oklahoma." -

Pruitt has fought against new federal regulations on water pollution, but he has also acted to limit 

pollution in the Illinois River in eastern Oklahoma, Strong said. 

"He worked really hard with us and Arkansas to come up with a sort of compromise agreement that 

would avoid litigation but put us on an aggressive path to increased protection on pollution in the 

Illinois River," he said. 

Runoff from chicken waste and water treatment plants has harmed water quality and fish habitat in 

the river, which draws large numbers of tourists. 
411 

Strong said Pruitt helped Oklahoma and Arkansas officials work together to limit this pollution. State 

officials, not the EPA, led the way. 

"It is a success story, but there is also more work to be done," Strong said. 

"It's time we have someone in there willing to listen to all sides and someone in particular who feels 

very strongly that states are in a strong position to protect the environment, more so than the federal 

government." 

Scott Thompson, executive director of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, praised 

Pruitt for another case. 

"Mr. Pruitt was essential in negotiating a historic water rights settlement with Indian tribes in southeast 

Oklahoma that preserved the ecosystems of scenic lakes and rivers," Thompson said. "This 

setHement, when Mr. Pruitt first arrived in office, seemed impossible due to conflict among the parties 

involved." 

The water rights settlement was announced in August by the state of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, and 

the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations. It is expected to double the city's future water supply by 

granting an average of 110,000 acre feet per year of water from the Sardis Lake reservoir in 

southeastern Oklahoma. 

The tribes had sued the state to protect their rights to water in the 22 counties comprising their 

historic land. The settlement was reached after five years of mediation and ensuras tnbal input into 

decisions about various bodies of water. 

When Trump tapped Pruitt for the post on Dec. 7, the attorney general signaled the EPA would act 

differently under his leadership. His appointment will be subject to Senate confirmation. 

''The American people are tired of seeing billions of dollars drained from our economy due to 

unnecessary EPA regulations, and I intend to run this agency in a way that fosters both responsible 

protection of the environment and freedom for American businesses," Pruitt said. 

In testimony before Congress, Pruitt acknowledged that EPA has an essential role. 

"I'm not one who believes the EPA has no role; the agency has played a very important role 

historically in addressing water and air quality issues that traverse state lines," he said. 

His disputes with the agency typically center on what he characterizes as federal overreach. 
412 

"Quite simply, the EPA does not possess the authority under the Clean Air Act to do what it is seeking 

to accomplish in the so-called Clean Power Plan," he testified. "The EPA under this administration 

treats states like a vessel of federal will. 

"The EPA believes states exist to implement the policies the administration sees fit regardless 

whether the laws, like the Clean Air Act, permit such actions." 
413 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, I was the Congressman in the district with the ArkansasOklahoma Illinois River situation. I was elected in a special election in 2001 and inherited this. This had been going on for about 

10 years. In 2001, from that time on until recently, we probably 

worked on this, it seems like every week. 

What happened was in 2003 the EPA came out and said the 

standard was such that by 2013 the river needed to have an attainment of .037 standard of phosphorus. Arkansas worked very, very 

hard, changed out all of its treatment plants in that area. That is 

one of the fastest growing areas in the country. The ratepayers 

paid for all of that, hauled out chicken litter and all those kinds 

of things, and made a dramatic improvement in the attainment. 

The problem was, though, Arkansas, and you mentioned, my 

good friend, Senator Booker, and he is a good friend, mentioned a 

lot about Oklahoma this and that. Arkansas never agreed to any 

of that. So they were going forward but they felt they could not attain the .037 standard because the first national river is in Arkansas, the Buffalo River, and it was not at .037, it is pristine. 

In good faith in 2005, I believe, the Attorney General in Oklahoma sued Arkansas. You can correct me if I am wrong on some 

of these things. In 2010, in that case, all of the stuff was put in 

place, but the Federal judges never ruled on it so it was open. 

Fast forward, 2013 is arriving. Arkansas does still not agree that 

the .037 standard is the appropriate one, so they were squaring off 

getting ready to sue each other again. Attorney General Pruitt and 

Attorney General McDaniel, a Democrat in my State, got together 

and said, let’s not waste a ton of money with lawyers; let’s use 

science and things like this to figure this out. 

They chose a neutral site, Baylor University, which has an excellent water department. They came in and did a study and came 

back and said .037 is the standard. Right now the States are living 

with that. It was a tremendous effort, took a long time, and it was 

a very, very difficult situation. So I applaud you. 

I want to put in the record a letter from our former Attorney 

General McDaniel that again outlines this. It was very, very complimentary of the Attorney General. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced letter follows:] 
414 

MR MCDANIEL 

_ RICHARDSON &C !r2ALHOUN 

January 18, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee 

on Environment & Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee 

on Environment & Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

DUSTIN M<DANIEL • SCOTT RICHARDSON • BART CALHOUN 

Attorneys at Law /1020 W. Fourth St., Suite 410, Little Rock, AR 72201 

o /501.235.8336 f 1 soL5B8.2IO< 

Re: Attorney General Scott Pruitt's 

Nomination To Serve As Director of tile 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Dear Chainnan Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the U.S. Senate 

Environment and Public Works Committee, 

My name is Dustin McDaniel. I am an attorney in Little Rock, Arkansas. I served as the 

Democratic Attorney General of the State of Arkansas from 2007-2015. During that time, I served 

for three years as the Co-Chair of the Democratic Attorneys General Association. I am a member 

of the Democratic National Committee and was a strong supporter of Secretary Clinton's campaign 

for President. I am grateful for your work on this committee. I believe in the core mission of the 

Environmental Protection Agency. I believe that climate change is real and overwhelmingly the 

result of human activity. I believe that the United States has a moral obligation to lead the world 

in shaping climate policy. These challenges in a hostile political environment will be acutely felt 

by the next director of the EPA. 

As you consider the nomination of my friend Scott Pruitt, I respectfully ask that you enter 

this letter into the record so that I may attempt to clarifY what I believe to be unfair criticisms of 

the historic agreement negotiated between myself on behalf of the State of Arkansas and Attorney 

General Pruitt on behalf of the State of Oklahoma regarding water quality in the Illinois River 

watershed, 

Prior to the elections of General Pruitt or myself, Oklahoma grappled with Arkansas 

municipal water systems and Arkansas industry, primarily poultry companies, over increased 

phosphorous levels in the Illinois River watershed. Pollution was substantially impacting the water 

quality in one of Oklahoma's most scenic waterways. In 2003, an agreement was executed that 

would require that the phosphorus levels be reduced over the next 10 years to a level .037 parts 

per million. As a result, all parties on both sides of the state line worked diligently to substantially 

improve the water quality. 
415 

Dustin McDaniel letter to U.S. Senate 

Environment and Public Works Committee 

Janwuy 17,2017 

Page2 of2 

At the same time, then-Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson filed suit using an 

out of state plaintiffs' finn against Arkansas's poultry industry. Many criticized the litigation as 

taking the focus away from the environment and placing it on money damages. The State of 

Oklahoma's outside counsel presented their case to U.S. District Court Judge Gregory Frizzell. 

Almost all the claims were dismissed by the court. The evidence was fully submitted to the judge 

in March of2010 on the remaining question regarding injunctive relief. To this day, no ruling in 

that litigation has been handed down. 

As 2013, the ten-year deadline for the reduced phosphorus levels, was approaching, two 

things were evident: 1.) despite huge improvements in water quality, the phosphorus levels in the 

river would not be at .037 parts per million before the deadline, and 2.) research into the standard 

itself called into question its origin and basis in hard science. 

The States of Arkansas and Oklahoma were facing a point oflitigating against one another 

(again) over this issue to the detriment of all concerned. I approached General Pruitt to ask if we 

could reach a solution that would protect the environment and demonstrate to our citizens that we 

were committed to working together on their behalf rather than litigating against one another using 

taxpayer dollars for lawyers instead of scientists. 

The resulting agreement reflects that Oklahoma enhanced, not relaxed, its enforcement of 

environmental protections. Scientists were appointed to establish the proper water quality metrics, 

establish a binding standard, and at no time were phosphorous abatement measures relaxed. It was 

an historic moment that demonstrated that cooperation in pursuit of environmental protection 

yielded better results than litigation. The resulting report was recently released from the 

commission and is available for your review. (See, www.ok.gov/conservationldocurnentsllR%20 

20 16.12.19o/o20Finai%20Report.pd0 

Recent press accounts regarding these efforts unfairly mischaracterize the work that was 

done by General Pruitt and his team. He was a staunch defender of sound science and good policy 

as appropriate tools to protect the environment ofhis state. I saw firsthand how General Pruitt was 

able to bridge political divides and manage multiple agency agendas to reach an outcome that was 

heralded by most credible observers as both positive and historic. 

As I am sure that this committee will have questions about this matter, I wanted to take this 

opportunity to add facts and context to an accomplishment that should stand as a credit to General 

Pruitt's career and qualifications for this nomination. 

I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to submit this letter to you and to your committee 

and to be a part of the record in these proceedings. I thank you for your service to our nation. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dustin McDaniel 

DM.Ibw 
416 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

Let me quote one of the final paragraphs: ‘‘Recent press accounts 

regarding these efforts unfairly mischaracterize the work that was 

done by General Pruitt and his team. He was a staunch defender 

of sound science and good policy as appropriate tools to protect the 

environment of the State. I saw firsthand how General Pruitt was 

able to bridge political divides and manage multiple agency agendas to reach an outcome that was heralded by most credible observers as both positive and historic.’’ 

Again, as someone who was intimately involved in that, more involved than I wanted to be in things, there really was a heroic effort by yourself and the people in Arkansas trying to resolve a difficult situation. 

Mr. PRUITT. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

That’s really all I have, Mr. Chair. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Boozman. 

Senator Sullivan. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and General Pruitt. 

I wanted to focus on—a number of us talked earlier about the 

frustrations that the American people have with the EPA. We 

talked about anger; Senator Ernst talked about fear. I believe it extends to a couple reasons underlying that. 

One is the agency currently feels that it is empowered to regulate literally every nook and cranny of American life. Related to 

that, they seem to have very little respect for the rule of law. Let 

me touch on those. 

Senator Ernst talked about the WOTUS rule. Literally the EPA 

has claimed the ability to regulate puddles. As a State with—preWOTUS by the way—65 percent of America’s wetlands in Alaska, 

we have very significant concerns about this. 

I want to actually address an earlier comment by Senator 

Whitehouse where he said there is nothing in your record that 

shows that you have the background to help America’s fishing industry. Well, I couldn’t disagree more with Senator Whitehouse, 

who is a friend and colleague. My State has a fishing industry like 

Rhode Island’s. It is a little bigger. Sixty percent of all the seafood 

that is—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It’s considerably bigger. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. Chairman, would you please acknowledge that for the 

record? 

Senator BARRASSO. With no objection. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Almost 60 percent of all seafood harvested in 

the United States comes from the waters of Alaska, and it is considered the best, most sustainable, best managed from an environmental standpoint, fishery in the world. 

Do you know what the No. 1 issue is, the top issue of the fishermen of Alaska is? It is EPA overreach. Let me give you a specific 

example. 

This is a regulation, 200 pages, on America’s fishermen, the ultimate small businessmen and women. This actually requires that 
417 

every fisherman in Alaska, commercial fisherman, requires a discharge permit to literally hose off the deck of a ship. Think about 

that. 

If you are gutting fish and fish guts or pieces of a fish fall on 

the deck of your ship, and you hose it down, fish back into the 

water of the oceans, you need a permit, 200 pages. This is the kind 

of thing where the trust between Americans and the EPA has eroded so much because of these kinds of issues. 

If confirmed, will you work with me and others on this Committee to make sure that these kinds of regulations are balancing 

environmental needs with jobs that are so important? You mentioned it as a cost. Will you work with us on that, and would you 

care to comment on a regulation like this, fish back into the ocean 

requiring a permit? Congress, by the way, has extended this twice, 

the implementation of this, so there is bipartisan agreement that 

we need to do something about this overreach. Would you care to 

comment on this? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, I think it is exemplary of a lack of priority. 

We have many, like I indicated earlier, 40 percent of our country 

is in nonattainment under the NAAQS Program. We have over 

1,300 CERCLA sites in this country that need attention to move 

those areas into remediation and restore those areas for environmental related issues. I think in some respects what you cite there 

is just missed priorities, trying to focus on something like that as 

opposed to focusing on these other areas that will really improve 

tangibly the environmental protections for people across the country. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Let me talk next about the rule of law. I am 

glad you emphasized it as a priority. I believe it is one of the principal reasons again why, again, there is such a lack of trust between the American people and the EPA. But it is not just a Republican issue. As a matter of fact, there are a number of examples 

where this is viewed as a bipartisan issue that we need to address. 

You may have seen with regard to the Clean Power Plan, Laurence 

Tribe, not known as a strong staunch Republican, Harvard law professor, stated, ‘‘The EPA is attempting to exercise lawmaking that 

belongs to the Congress and judicial power that belongs to the Federal courts. EPA is attempting an unconstitutional trifecta usurping the prerogatives of the States, Congress, and the Federal courts 

all at once with its Clean Power Plan.’’ Then he stated, ‘‘Burning 

the Constitution should not become part of our national energy policy.’’ 

You’ve been involved in some of these cases, the Clean Power 

Plan, the Waters of the U.S. In both of these cases, courts have 

stayed the EPA’s rule. Why do you think the courts have done 

that? Do you think the rule of law that has been ignored by the 

EPA is something that if confirmed, you will work on to regain the 

trust between the EPA and the American people? 

Mr. PRUITT. As I indicated earlier, Senator, I think at times perhaps there those in law and the courts that look at rule of law as 

something that is academic and technical. But it is real. It affects 

people in very real ways. When you have agencies of any type that 

act inconsistent with the statutory authority given to them by Congress, it creates the kind of uncertainty that you are talking about. 
418 

People don’t know what is expected of them, and paralysis happens. 

And so rule of law is important to economic development, it is 

important to send messages of certainty, it is important so that 

people can plan and allocate resources. There are many laws that 

people look at and say, I don’t really like that. So long as they 

know what is expected of them, they can plan and allocate resources to comply. I think that is what is important about rule of 

law. 

Senator SULLIVAN. And as one of the lead litigators on the 

WOTUS rule and the Clean Power Plan and the fact that the Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit have put stays on those rules, 

what do you think that indicates the courts’ view is of those two 

rules issued by the EPA at this moment? 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, it is unprecedented for the Supreme Court to 

have done what they did in the Clean Power Plan. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Never happened in the history—— 

Mr. PRUITT. Never happened in the history of jurisprudence before the U.S. Supreme Court. That says a lot. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. 

Senator Moran. 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to somebody ahead of me 

if they would yield back to me for the next question. 

Senator BARRASSO. That would be fine. I have some time that I 

haven’t gotten to yet in this second round. We will go shortly to a 

third round. 

I wanted to talk a little about the Mercury Rule that the Supreme Court overturned. They overturned the EPA’s Mercury Rule, 

finding that the EPA did not appropriately consider the costs of the 

rule. Noting that between the time that the rule is issued and the 

Supreme Court decision 3 years passed, the EPA Administrator 

Gina McCarthy was on a television show a couple days before the 

Supreme Court made its ruling, and they said, well, what if the Supreme Court says you are wrong? And essentially, she said, well, 

the majority of the power plants have already decided and invested 

in a path, because it is been 3 years, to achieve compliance with 

the Mercury Air Toxic Standards. In other words, she had already 

gotten her result, even though what she had done was found by the 

courts to be illegal. 

So I would ask you your thoughts on her statement, and do you 

believe that her statement shows respect for the rule of law? 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, Senator, this is speculation to a certain degree, 

and one of my favorite philosophers is Yogi Berra, and he said, 

‘‘Predictions are pretty tough, particularly about the future.’’ So I 

don’t want to be too speculative here. But when you look at the response of the Supreme Court and the Clean Power Plan, I think 

largely the reason they acted in an unprecedented way is because 

of what you just addressed, Mr. Chairman, that in response to the 

Michigan and the EPA case, there were some comments made that 

they had achieved the outcome despite the fact that it acted inconsistent with the framework under the law. 

So I think rule of law is something, as I indicated to Senator Sullivan, it is not something that is academic. I think it is meaningful. 
419 

It inspires confidence in those that are regulated. It gives them assurance that regulators are acting consistent with their authority, 

and it allows them to plan and allocate resources to meet the 

standards and meet the objectives that Congress and regulators established. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Moran. 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

General, you can see by where I sit on the dais that I haven’t 

been in the Senate a terribly long time. But one of my causes upon 

my arrival and the discovery of how the Senate works is to try to 

work with my colleagues to reassert congressional authority. In my 

view there is a number of ways we could do that. One, Congress 

could quit passing huge pieces of legislation and delegating authorities to agencies and departments. Another one that we could 

pursue—and I hope we will this year—is an appropriations process, 

by which we have the opportunity to influence decisions made at 

the Environmental Protection Agency and every other agency and 

department. 

One of the things—when we do that by developing a relationship 

with an agency head, knowing that, and I guess part of that is that 

Members of Congress need to have greater levels of expertise on 

the subject matter of their jurisdiction. One of the subcommittee I 

chair is in the Commerce Committee. It has jurisdiction over the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The Environmental Protection Agency just last week finalized its greenhouse 

gas standards for light duty cars and trucks for 2022 to 2025. 

Now, the law says that it is to coordinate that effort with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. And that agency is 

still developing its own process to determine appropriate fuel 

standards. I raise this as an example of where, once again, two 

agencies instructed by Congress to work together to find a solution 

or the right answer to an issue ignore the law. I assume you would 

assure me or members of this Committee that the Environmental 

Protection Agency, to the best of your ability, will obey the law. 

But I also assume that you are willing to assure me that when 

directed by the law to cooperate with other agencies, to have the 

input of an agency that our subcommittee has jurisdiction over, as 

the person in the Senate responsible for these issues, I go to the 

agency that I have the most influence over, and they say, well, 

EPA’s already done its thing. I assume we can bring those kinds 

of practices to an end. 

Mr. PRUITT. Absolutely, Senator. I think that interagency discussion, that collaboration to ensure that there is meaningful discussion, review of action, takes place. I want to speak generally to 

your delegation reference, because I do think that that is a very 

important issue that you raise. I think a lot of times what has happened is that Congress has spoken in very general ways, I will not 

say vague, but approaching vagueness, and giving carte blanche or 

substantial authority to agencies without providing the kind of 

framework that is necessary for them to make their decision. 

From a separation of powers issue, I think that is very important. I think it is important for Congress, article 1, to exercise its 

authority and to give the direction to these agencies on how they 

should conduct their business. Senator Cardin, in his comments 
420 

and questions earlier about the Waters of the United States Rule, 

I think that is a problem, presently, largely because the definition 

of Waters of the United States in the statute is so vague and so 

general, it creates uncertainty. 

So I think making sure that Congress performs its role and the 

executive branch performs its role in enforcing laws, and we try to 

do less delegation and respect separation of powers, is very, very 

important. 

Senator MORAN. I appreciate your reassurance of how you would 

conduct, if confirmed, the agency. It also is a reflection upon the 

need for Congress to do its job better. Perhaps, I guess you’d have 

nothing to do with that. But for me and my colleagues, we need 

to be much more precise and clear in legislation and much more 

likely to deal in smaller bite-size pieces. Too often I think Congress 

is interested, and I don’t want to be derogatory to any of my colleagues, but too often we look for the headline, we solved a problem, and yet we complain about what an agency’s decisions are, 

and we have given them so much authority they have the ability 

to make what I would consider, some of us may consider a bad decision. 

Mr. PRUITT. And there are important steps that have been taken. 

We’ve mentioned TSCA this morning, where you’ve done just that, 

in his past year. So I think that is a very important item that you 

raise, Senator. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Moran. 

We’ll now move to a third round of questions. 

Attorney General Pruitt, you just mentioned TSCA. You sent a 

letter to this Committee in April 2015 supporting the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act. In fact, the timing of your letter was 

less than a month after the bill was introduced, and you were the 

first Attorney General of the United States to support the bill. 

The bill ultimately received overwhelming bipartisan support in 

Congress. It would be your job to implement the bipartisan reforms 

and ensure we have consistent regulation throughout the country. 

Would you discuss the plans that you might have to implement this 

legislation, and will you commit to implementing the legislation in 

a timely manner? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, and Mr. Chairman, yes. I think in response 

to obligations of the EPA, this body has put timelines before the 

EPA to carry out certain rulemaking, the Prioritization Rule, the 

Risk Evaluation Rule, fees that need to be established, all those are 

mid-term in 2017. And I think it is a matter of the EPA Administrator making that a priority at the agency. 

I also think that in response to Senator Gillibrand earlier, and 

others have raised this too, there are certain, like PFOA, that need 

to be addressed in evaluating that listing under TSCA or perhaps 

the Safe Drinking Water Act as well. So I think there are specific 

actions that need to be taken but also the rulemaking process and 

the deadlines be adhered to. 

Senator BARRASSO. You made reference to, and I did in my opening statements as well, to Flint. There was give and take on Flint 

a little earlier. The other thing I brought up was the Gold Key 
421 

Mine spill in Colorado, an environmental disaster caused by the 

EPA. Last Friday, the EPA announced that it has denied all claims 

for the $1.2 billion in lost income, loss of use of property and damage to the businesses and the property suffered by 73 tribes, by 

land owners, local businesses, local governments as a result of the 

spill. The EPA’s excuse was its legal interpretation of the Federal 

Tort Claims Act. According to the EPA, if a Federal agency hurts 

someone through a discretionary action, then the Federal Tort 

Claims Act does not apply. This doesn’t sound right to me. 

So if confirmed, will you commit that you will review that decision and use whatever authority is available to you under the law 

to help the people who have been harmed by the EPA’s negligence? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much. 

A question. Mr. Chairman, I know you did not use, when we 

started this round of questioning, you did not use like 2 minutes 

and 30 seconds of your time. When you comment like you have just 

commented, are you drawing down on that 2 minutes and 30 seconds? 

Senator BARRASSO. I am now in the third round of questioning, 

yes, sir. And I would reflect that looking back at EPA nomination 

hearing processes, when Gina McCarthy was nominated, came to 

this Committee, Chairman Barbara Boxer, two rounds, first round 

5 minutes, second round, 2 minutes. We are now in a third round 

of 5 minutes, so I think that the Chairman has tried to listen to 

our discussions with other members to make sure that all the 

Democrats and every member had a chance to have as many questions as possible. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. I want to go back to something you 

said about one of our colleagues with respect to EPA actually visiting States and participating in meetings in those States with respect to the Clean Power Plan. I think it was said that West Virginia, my native State, native State of my friend from West Virginia, that was not visited. We have heard since then from Joe 

Goffman, who was counsel to John McCain, EPA Assistant Administrator for Air, as you may know, he said he personally participated in meetings on the Clean Power Plan in West Virginia, also 

in Kentucky, Texas, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Washington, California, Wyoming, North Dakota, Colorado, Illinois, and I think Nebraska. 

I wrote a letter to Gina McCarthy on January 11th. You may recall, Mr. Pruitt, I wrote a letter to you on December 28th, and 

posed a series of questions to you and asked for your responses by 

January 9th. I have yet to receive those responses. I wrote a letter 

to her on January 11th, again, to Gina McCarthy and to Assistant 

Secretary Darcy of the Department of the Army. I wrote because 

we were getting and hearing on our office a whole list of assertions 

about the Waters of the U.S. I think this is maybe instructive for 

all of us. The things that we were hearing, people were calling in, 

in Delaware. It led us to ask these questions. 

One of the questions was, are the EPA and the Corps currently 

implementing a new Clean Water Rule? The assertion was that in-
422 

deed, that has been happening. So we asked, is that really the case. 

And 2 days later, 2 days later, we received a response, no, the 

agencies are not now implementing the new Clean Water Rule. Implementation of the new rule is temporarily stayed by the Sixth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. September 2015, the agencies immediately directed their field offices to stop using the new rule, and 

instead resume implementing regulations interpreting the guidance 

prior to the new rule. That was one of the questions we asked. 

We also asked, because we were hearing assertions otherwise, 

are the EPA and the Corps currently pursuing enforcement actions 

pursuant to the new Clean Water Rule? And we got on the same 

date, January 13th, this response, that said no, the agencies are 

not pursuing any enforcement actions pursuant to the new Clean 

Water Rule and will not enforce this rule unless and until the 

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stay is lifted. 

The next question we asked, because we were hearing assertions 

otherwise, does anything in the Clean Water Rule revoke or otherwise modify the Clean Water Act’s statutory or regulatory exemptions for farming and ranching? Response, 2 days later, January 

13th, was no, the Clean Water Rule makes absolutely—absolutely 

no changes to normal farming, ranching, and forestry exemptions 

established under the Clean Water Act in implementing regulations. 

So question No. 4, some have claimed that landowners will no 

longer be able to rely on the Clean Water Act’s statutory and regulatory exemptions for farming and ranching, should the Clean 

Water Rule go into effect, because while the statute and regulations remain unchanged, the agency has narrowed those exemptions in practice through the actions in the field. Is that true? And 

the answer is, not surprisingly, the assertion that the agencies 

have no application in statutory and regulatory exemptions for 

farming, ranching, and forestry is untrue. The agencies have taken 

no steps intended to reduce the scope of the exemptions. We have 

not observed changes by field offices in the way they interpret or 

implement these exemptions. In fact the Corps has re-emphasized 

publicly that these exemptions are self-implementing. Farmers, 

ranchers, and foresters are not required to get approval from the 

agencies prior to using the exemptions. 

I raise this because sometimes what people assert to be true, 

sometimes it is over the Internet, sometimes it is on television, 

sometimes it is on the radio, newspapers. Assertions are made. And 

in this case there is a whole long list of assertions that were made, 

and none of them were true. They are distortions, untruths about 

what the EPA is doing with respect to a regulation that was 

stayed. 

I would ask to, for the record, Mr. Chairman, to be able to submit for the record the questions that we posed to EPA on January 

11th and also the responses that we have received. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
423 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Carper: 

JAN f 3 2017 

Thank you for your January II, 2017, letter regarding the status of the U.S. Department of the Anny 

(Army) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Water Rule. We share your concerns 

about misinformation being reported about the rule and appreciate the opportunity to respond. 

The Clean Water Rule was promulgated in response to requests the agencies received from thousands of 

stakeholders who asked us to replace existing confusion, delay, and inconsistency with improved 

regulations defining the scope of the Clean Water Act (CWA) consistent with the law and the best 

available science. Our goals were to make the process of identifying waters covered, and not covered, 

by the statute more understandable, transparent, and effective and to accomplish this without changing 

any of our longstanding exemptions for farmers, ranchers, and foresters. After years of work involving 

an unprecedented level of public outreach and benefitting fiom the latest peer reviewed science, the final 

Clean Water Rule was published in the Federal Register in June 2015. The rule was subsequently 

challenged in federal court and its implementation temporarily stayed by the 61

h Circuit Court of Appeals 

in October 2015. 

Your letter raises important questions regarding the status of the rule and how the agencies are currently 

implementing the CWA. We hope you and your constituents find our answers responsive and helpful. 

Question 1: Are the EPA and the Corps currently implementing the new Clean Water Rule? 

Answer: No, the agencies are not now implementing the new Clean Water Rule. Implementation of the 

new rule was temporarily stayed by the 61

h Circuit Court of Appeals in September 2015. The agencies 

immediately directed their field offices to stop using the new rule and instead, resume implementing 

regulations and interpretive guidance in place prior to the new rule. 

Question 2: Are the EPA and the Corps currently pursuing enforcement actions pursuant to the 

new Clean Water Rule? 
424 

Answer: No. the agencies are not pursuing any enforcement actions pursuant/a the new Clean Water 

Rule and will not enforce this rule unless and until the 6'h Circuit Court of Appeals stay is lifted. 

Question 3: Does anything in the Clean Water Rule revoke or otherwise modifY the CWA's 

statutory and regulatory exemptions for farming and ranching? 

Answer: No, the Clean Water Rule makes abso/urely no changes to norma/farming. ranching, and 

forestry exemptions established under the CWA and implementing regulations. 

Question 4: Some have claimed that landowners will no longer be able to rely on the CWA's 

statutory and regulatory exemptions for farming and ranching should the Clean Water Rule go 

into effect because, while the statute and regulations remain unchanged, the agency has narrowed 

those exemptions "in practice" through their actions in the field. Is that true? 

Answer: The assertion that rhe agencies have narrowed applicarion oft he statutory and regulatory 

exemptions for farming. ranching and forestry is untrue. The agencies have taken no steps intended to 

reduce the scope of the exemptions and we have not observed changes byfield offices in the way they 

interpret or implement these exemptions. In fact. EPA and the Corps have reemphasized publicly that 

rhese exemptions are self-implementing. Farmers. ranchers. andforesters are not required ro get 

approval from the agencies prior to using the exemptions. 

Question 5: Several ease studies related to farming practices - including exam pies related to 

plowing, discing, construction of stock ponds, and new uses of cropland- have been presented to 

members of Congress to suggest that the Clean Water Rule is expanding the agencies' jurisdiction 

under the CWA. If you are familiar with tbe aforementioned case studies, are any of them 

examples of new enforcement actions under the Clean Water Rule? 

Answer: The agencies are aware of case studies being presented in supporr of assertions that the Corps 

and EPA are already using the Clean Water Rule and its principles to expand jurisdiction under the Act 

and to narrow rhe scope offarming. ranching, and forestry exemptions under CWA section 404(.f). The 

fact is that ALL oft he case studies that we have seen were initiated prior to the Clean Water Rule, and 

many represent decisions made in the previous administration. This means the agencies' actions were 

taken under the regulations and guidance (e.g .. the Corps 1986 Regulatory Program regulations. and 

the 2008 Joint Guidance) in place prior to the Clean Water Rule. In addition, implementation oft he 

Clean Water Rule has been temporarily srayed by the 6'h Circuit Court of Appeals. The agencies have 

not. and will not, enforce or implement the Clean Warer Rule during the stay. 

Question 6: Are some or all of the cases highlighted actually federal enforcement cases conducted 

in accordance with agency regulations promulgated prior to the Clean Water Rule? 

Answer: Yes, all rhe cases presented (including enforcement actions. jurisdictional determinations. and 

Section 404(.f) exemprions) represent actions and decisions which were made using the regulations and 

guidance in place prior to promulgation of the Clean Water Rule. These cases reflect actions taken 

under agency regulations in place for as long as 30 years (e.g .. Corps 1986 Regulatory Program 

regulations). 
425 

Question 7: Considering all of tbc agencies' jurisdi<:tional determinations since the Slt14NCC 

(1001) and Ropono.f (100ft) &:aH5, is it fair to characterize tbe Clean Water Act's current 

geo11raphic scope as narrower tban II was prior to tho.w decision•"' 

An.<wer res. lilt: Supremt: ( 'ourt ded.1·ion in SWA,\'CC ·reduced the f.!~ographic .<co~ ol;urisdiction 

under the ('lean Water Act After SWA.\'C ·c ami Rapano.<. wn.<istent with guidance and Corp.• and EPA 

reJfltlation.\, the ugencie.•· ha•·e u.uerredjuri.•dicrion untler tlte CWA mon: narrtiM·Iy than lt'as the ca.•e 

prior to those t.kdsion.\ 

Question 8: Are Prior Connrted Croplands still excluded from Clean Water Act jurisdiction? 

An.<wer: t'es. Prior Com-erted Croplands (PC'(') remain mm-juri>di<'tional under EPA and Corps 

Clean Water Act ref.!ulations. EPA and the ( 'arp.• promulj.!ated.fi11al reJlulation,, in I 993 !5X Federal 

Rej.!i.Wer 4500/iJ exdudinf!_ ('('('from CIIA juri.•·tlit·tion und tile.>c rule.< remain in effect ,.·itholll r:hanj.!e 

Question 9: Arc permafrost soib considered •ntcn under the Clean Water Act? 

An.mw: No. The presence ufpermafrmt i.< it.•ei(XOT determinati•·e of the existem·e of' wetland.< or 

wuter.< of' the United State.<. Permufru.l'l i.< a permunently.fruzen luyer n/ soil . .>ediment. or rock at 

•·arying depth., he/ow the surf'u<'e andfound in polur r~f.!i111l.\'. 

Thank you again for your letter. Please call us if you haw any questions or }Our statT may contact Denis 

Borum in the EPA's Office of Congressional and lntcrgovcmm(ntal Relations at h~lTIJlllA;:.ttJ.;>" cpa.;:n' 

or 202-564-4836; or Gib Owen in the Otlicc of the Assistant Secretary ufthc ;\nny (Civil Works) at 

!ill!.,~.J'.l'L"-'.>:!.:_£_m.tli.mol or (703) 695-4641. 

Joel Beauvais 

Deputy Assistant Administrator lor Water 

t .. S. En"·ironmental Protection Agency 

Sinocrely, 

·~ 

len Dare' 

tant Seer.:~ lor C1 

U.S. Department of the A 
426 

'llnitfd ~tatcs iirnatr 

WASHINGTON, OC ?0510 

fhe Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue. N. W. 

Washington. D.C. 20460 

The Honorable Jo-Eilen Darcy 

Assistant Secretary of the Anny 

Department of the Am1y, Civil Works 

l 08 Army Pentagon 

Washington, DC 20310 

January II. 2017 

Dear Administrator McCarthy and Assistant Secretary Darcy, 

We write to seek assurances regarding the scope and implications of the EPA's Clean Water 

Rule. As you know, the rule. tlnalized and published in the Federal Register on June 29,2015. 

was stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on October 9, 2015. Acknowledging that the rule is CUJTently undergoing review in the courts and cannot legally be enforced by 

EPA. we continue to hear concerns from constituents and read claims from industry that suggest 

the Rule's reach is mNe expansive than EPA has indicated. Consequently, we arc rcqu~sting 

responses to several claims, outlined below. so our offices can provide additional clarity to our 

constituents regarding the reach of the Clean Water Rule should it go into effect in the future. 

!'he specific questions we arc seeking clarity on arc as liJllows: 

l) Arc the EPA and the Corps curr~ntly implementing the new Clean Water Rule? 

2) Arc the EPA and the Corps currently pursuing enforcement actions pursuant to the new 

Clean Water Rule'! 

<) Docs anything in the Clean Water Rule n·voke or otherwise modify the Clean Water 

Act's statutory and regulatory exemptions lor farming and ranching~ 

4) Some have claimed that landowners will no longer be able to rely on the Clean Water 

A-=t's statutory and regulatory exemptions for farming and ranching should the Clean 

Water Rule go into effect because, while the statute and regulations remain unchanged. 

th~ agency has narrowed those exemptions ''in practice" through their actions in the tleld. 

Is that true'? 

5) SeveJal case studies related to farming practices including examples related to plowing, 

discing, construction of stock ponds, and new uses of cropland- have been presented to 

\1embers of Congress to suggest that the Clean Water Rule is expanding the agencies' 

jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. If you are familiar with the aforementioned case 

studies, are any of them examples of new enforcement actions under the Clean Water 

Rule? 
427 

6) Are some or all of the case studies highlighted actually federal enforcement actions 

conducted in accordance with prior agency regulations promulgated before the Clean 

Water Rule? 

7) Considering all of the agencies' jurisdictional determinations since the SW ANCC (200 1) 

and Rapanos (2006) cases, is it fair to characterize the Clean Water Act's geographic 

scope as narrower than it was prior to those decisions? 

8) Are prior converted croplands still excluded from Clew1 Water Act jurisdiction? 

9) Are permafrost soils considered waters under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act? 

Thank you for your consideration of these questions. We look forward to your prompt response. 

Sincerely, 

~£~ 

~-·a· 
428 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

I’d like to look at a chart, if you don’t mind. This is a report card 

that lists 17 counties. How many counties do you have in Oklahoma? 

Mr. PRUITT. Seven—seventy-seven. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PRUITT. Mr. Chairman, can I refer to Senator Inhofe for 

these questions? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. I was watching; his lips are barely moving as 

you speak. 

Thank you. 

At the same time you’ve been suing EPA on its ozone standards, 

all the counties in Oklahoma for which data is collected earned an 

F from the American Lung Association for not meeting ozone 

health standards. You have 60 counties that the American Lung 

Association does not have data on the progress made or not made 

with respect to ozone. These are the ones we have information on, 

17. Seventeen counties from Adair to Tulsa. You live in Tulsa, I expect? Tulsa County. They all got Fs. This is last year, 2016. My 

question to you is, what did you do about it? What did you do about 

it before or since? Sometimes people may not believe what we say, 

but they will believe what we do. What have you done about this? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, two things. I really believe there needs to 

be a tremendous effort made by counties across this country to 

move nonattainment into attainment. Over 40 percent of the country—presently 40 percent of the country approximately is in nonattainment. There needs to be great prioritization with EPA and 

local officials in achieving attainment. 

Senator CARPER. But that wasn’t my question, Mr. Pruitt. What 

did you do about it? You have 17 counties for which we have data 

from last year. What did you do about it? Before or since? That’s 

what I am asking you. 

Mr. PRUITT. As indicated in our meeting individually, the primary enforcement responsibility in Oklahoma with respect to air 

quality permits and the rest is the Department of Environmental 

Quality. And there have been actions taken by DEQ, and they continually work with those counties to reach attainment. And we provide general counsel advice to that agency in the performance of 

their role. 

Senator CARPER. I am not the Attorney General of Delaware, 

never had any intention to be, but if 17 of our counties in Delaware—we only have 3—if 17 of them or all 3 of them got Fs, I 

promise you, I would do something about it. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Congress recently passed a bipartisan bill—many of us up here 

supported it, I know I did—as part of the Water Infrastructure Bill 

to allow States to lead implementation and enforcement of EPA’s 

coal ash rule through the State-based permit program. That rule 

is already in effect, and it is important that the EPA move quickly 

on this. If you are confirmed, are you going to get right on this 

thing? 
429 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. 

Sue and settle, we all know what that is, we know that groups, 

maybe some of the environmentalist extremist groups will file lawsuits against the EPA. The EPA, instead of defending against the 

lawsuits, will enter into a resolution behind closed doors without 

any public input or participation. These settlements result in new 

sets of legally binding priorities and duties for the EPA that 

achieve demands of special interests. Can you share your thoughts 

on sue and settle? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, this issue came up earlier. And it is a concern. Because it is regulation through litigation. There is a place 

for consent decrees in our litigation system, but to use a consent 

decree to bypass Congress, bypass the regulatory requirements 

that you’ve placed upon those agencies, to engage in rulemaking 

through litigation is something I think should not occur. 

Senator INHOFE. And that is the part that did not come up earlier. I appreciate that very much. 

Last, the cost of regulations. As you know the Supreme Court 

overturned EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Rule in 2015 because the 

EPA failed to—ignored the fact that the cost was $9.6 billion annually of the rule. Now, in fact, the EPA’s regularly issued rules over 

the past 8 years are very costly for our industries and our job creators. According to the CRS, now, the CRS, when they make an 

evaluation, are much more conservative. The figure is always a 

very conservative figure. But they said the Clean Power Plan 

would be at least $5 billion to $8 billion a year. The figures I have 

heard on that are far greater because it wouldn’t be that much different than the old systems they tried to do through legislation. The methane standards on oil and gas facilities, $315 million a year. The new ozone standards, $1.4 billion. The 2015 coal ash 

standards, $587 million a year. And the 2011 sulfur dioxide standards, $1.5 billion a year. Now, when you hear this, all this money 

is being spent on compliance costs by our job creators, people out 

there that are working for a living, and they are hiring people. 

What are your thoughts, and what do you believe should be the 

role of the costs of EPA’s decisionmaking? 

Mr. PRUITT. I think it is very important in the rulemaking process, Senator. And the Supreme Court and courts have recognized 

that very important factor. 

I mentioned earlier the case that we were involved in in Oklahoma involving the regional haze program. That was an example 

where Oklahoma actually complied and met and satisfied the requirements under the statute and the rule. But the steps that were 

taken were displaced by the EPA, adding hundreds of millions of 

dollars of cost to consumers in the generation of electricity. So costs 

are very important. We need to make sure that they are considered. In certain areas of the statute, as I indicated earlier, they 

can’t be, under the title I NAAQS program. But in that case that 

you are referring to, it is an obligation of the EPA to actually engage in a cost-benefit analysis, make a record before it made its decision. 

Senator INHOFE. Do you think that the laws that are in the 

books right now adequately handle this situation? 
430 

Mr. PRUITT. I do, largely, Senator. I think it is mostly an application issue that the agency and the regulator is doing its job under 

the statute as provided by Congress. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And presumably, Mr. Pruitt, it goes without saying that if the EPA is going to consider cost to the industry 

of confirming to pollution guidelines it should also consider benefits 

to the public from cleaner air, cleaner water and the results of that 

compliance, right? 

Mr. PRUITT. It should, Senator. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So we have been talking about fundraising 

done by you for the rule of law defense fund during the time when 

you were both a board member and for a full year the chairman 

of the Rule of Law Defense Fund and the fact that we have exactly 

zero information in this Committee about that fundraising. We also 

have zero—and let me ask unanimous consent for the page from 

the filing that discloses that he was in fact a member of the board 

of directors and chairman of the Rule of Law Defense Fund. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
431 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

STATEMENT FOR COMPLETION BY PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES 

Memberships: 

List significant memberships and offices held in professional, fraternal, business, scholarly, civic, 

charitable and other organizations. Attach additional pages if necessary. 

Organization Office held (If any) Dates 

Southern Theological Board ofTrustee 1112012-1112017 

Seminary 

The Windows Ministry Board of Directors 12/2009- Present 

Incorporated 

Republican Attorneys Member 112011- Present 

General Association 

Rule of Law Defense Fund Member of the Board of 11/2016-12/2016 

Directors 

District Attorneys Council Member 1/2011- Present 

Board of Equalization Member 1/2011- Present 

Rule of Law Defense Fund Chairman 1112015-11/2016 

Rule of Law Defense Fund Board Member 1112013-11/2015 

Republican Attorneys Executive Committee Member 1112013-11/2015 

General Association 

State of Oklahoma Attorney General 112011- Present 

Qualifications: 

State fully your qualifications to serve in the position to which you have been nominated. 

am a licensed attorney with significant experience in constitutional law, the Administrative 

Procedures Act, and most major Environmental Protection Agency administered statutes. This body 

has recognized my expertise in EPA related matters on several occasions, inviting me to testify 
432 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We also have a meeting agenda from the 

Republican Attorney Generals Association during the time that you 

were executive committee member of the Republican Attorney Generals Association meeting at the Greenbrier, which I will stipulate 

to my friend from West Virginia is a lovely place to go. The agenda, 

which I would like to take this page of and put into the record, 

mentions a private meeting with Murray Energy. It mentions a private meeting with Southern Company. It mentions a private meeting with the American Fuel Petrochemical Manufacturers. If you 

will show the graphic, these are all the same groups that I have 

been asking about in terms of your fundraising for the Rule of Law 

Defense Fund. And there is Murray Energy, and there is Southern 

Company, and I am sure the American Fuel Petrochemical Manufacturers represent a lot of the others. 

As I understand it, we know nothing, no minutes, no statements, 

no reports about what took place in those meetings that are described as private meetings on a sheet that is stamped confidential. 

Correct? We know nothing about the content of those meetings? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, I did not generate the document. I know 

nothing about how that document got generated or what—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Are you denying that those private meetings took place? 

Mr. PRUITT. No, Senator. I just didn’t generate the document and 

don’t know about the content, other than what you have represented. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK, and we don’t know. And because you 

were on the executive committee of RAGA, that is information that 

we could get, right? I mean, it is available, if there were minutes 

or reports out of those meetings, notes taken. But we don’t have 

them, correct? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, that would be a request made to the Republican Attorney Generals Association. I might add, the Republican 

Attorney Generals Association, there is a Democrat Attorney Generals Association as well. 

[Simultaneous conversations.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I am not faulting that. I am talking about 

private meetings at the time that you were on the executive committee with some of the really, really big polluters with whom you 

have been very closely politically associated. 

Mr. PRUITT. There is a Conference, if I may, Senator, of Western 

Attorneys General. There is a national association. And they talk 

about water. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I know. 

Mr. PRUITT. And there are meetings that take place at each of 

those as well. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The rest of the Attorney Generals avoid 

that because we don’t want to talk about water. 

Let’s talk about FOIA. You have had a conversation with the 

Chairman about FOIA. As I understand it, there is a FOIA request 

to the Oklahoma Attorney General’s office, to your office, for emails between your office and Devon Energy and Koch Industries 

and Americans for Prosperity, the Koch front group, and Murray 

Energy and the American Petroleum Institute. And the information 

that I have is that that Open Records Act request was filed more 
433 

than 740 days ago. More than 2 years ago. That in response to it, 

your office has conceded that there are 3,000 responsive documents. Three thousand e-mails and other documents between your 

office and these companies. And that in 740 days, exactly zero of 

those documents have been produced. 

Is that acceptable turnaround on a FOIA request, and should we 

not be concerned that your office is not complying with a FOIA request that relates so specifically to so many of these companies 

that are going to be before you as EPA Administrator if you are 

confirmed? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, I actually have a general counsel and an 

administrator in my office that are dedicated to performing or providing responses to Open Records requests. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Not very dedicated, if it takes 740 days. 

That is still zero. 

Mr. PRUITT. But I am not involved in that process. That is handled independently by the administrator and that general counsel 

in responding. So I can’t speak to the timeline and why it is taking 

that length of time. But I will tell you that our office works—we 

actually go across the State of Oklahoma in training with officials 

locally in compliance with FOIA and Open Records laws. 

[Simultaneous conversations.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE [continuing]. Your own training, because it 

doesn’t seem to be sticking very well. 

Mr. PRUITT. The representation you made about the timeline, I 

don’t know. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Given how many of these groups have important financial interests before the EPA, do you not think that 

3,000 e-mails back and forth between you and your office and them 

are relevant to potential conflict of interest as an administrator 

and should be before us as we consider this? 

Mr. PRUITT. Again, I think the EPA ethics counsel has put out 

a very clear process with respect to covered entities, as we described it earlier, and on particular matters and specific cases, I 

will follow the advice of that EPA career person, ethics, to make 

sure that there—— 

[Simultaneous conversations.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You keep saying that. 

Senator BARRASSO. The Senator’s time has expired. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Will you let me finish my sentence? 

Senator BARRASSO. Please do. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The problem with that is that if you 

haven’t disclosed any of this information, then the EPA ethics 

counsel would have no idea to even look. They would have no idea 

what the risks are. You can’t say, nobody can look at whether I did 

this, but by the way, they’re going to look at it. It just doesn’t add 

up. Sorry about going over my time. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator. 

I would like to point out, we had a report cared that was just 

brought up. And I would like to introduce for the record a letter 

from each of the five Members of Congress from the State of Oklahoma with their steadfast support for Scott Pruitt, saying, we are 

proud of his service to our State and are very confident that he will 
434 

do a superb job serving our Nation and our citizens in this new 

role. 

Also as a follow up for the first round of questions, there was a 

dispute about a lawsuit against Mahard Egg Firm and who it was 

filed by. I have here the complaint in the case, and it was filed May 

18th, 2011, and if you read it, it says, in the State of Oklahoma, 

by and through Attorney General Scott Pruitt. So you are the one 

that filed the suit, along with the Attorney General of Texas 

against Mahard Egg Firm. This will be submitted for the record as 

well. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
435 

Luther Strange (AL) 

Leslie Rutledge (AR) 

Cynthia Coffman (CO) 

Pam Bondi [FL) 

Sam Oleos (GA) 

2015 Summer National Me~tbi'g", Lawrence Wasden (10) Doug Peterson (NE] (~-t~~-~-- Ala!f.~!lson ,(SC) 

Greg Zoeller (IN) ''fo, · ;',M,a y'(SD) 

Buddy Caldwell (LA) ,(ND) "-' .,.:,, (TX) 

Bill Schuette (Ml) Mll<e DeWine )'\;;, s (UT) 

Tim Fox (MT) Scott PrU\tf(O,J() ·:;c·., ad Schimel (WI) ·" :> · 0 't ;,.P£trick Morrisey (WV) 

~·--

To: Attorney Genmil Lawrence Wasden, Stat~f;:t~:~~'>. From: Scott Will, RAGA Executive Director c:~~~- .. ,;~ .. . : · : 

Date: july 27 2015 , . . . '2"•<'--·' '•' ·,,_ Re: RAGA Summer National Meetlnf :White Suipli\lr Sprhtgs,'WV 

" :.;;~"t> ·=r-~l, ""~{1?-.:<·'sP·· 

Following are the final details for the\ipcornll)g RAGA:Iwents'in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia. We 

are pleased you will be joining usjt~tl looitro1Ward to a)ireat meeting. A copy of the updated Agenda for the 

meeting is enclosed. ·!~f · .. ,_·:,, · .. "-, .. ,..,, 

:t:·'-,., ,,_~{~~~-:./:~~> . ~--::·,.,_ --~:·.~o· 

Fl!£bt Information: A~:hed i~Jt cop~~.fyour flight confirmation. 

~;·J,;~";~r,, ~- '-, ·-~~-.. "~-;_-, . '\~· 

TheGr 

Check-In day August 1, 2015 

Check-Out Date: Tuesday August')-, 2015 

Hotel Confirmation Number: •••• 

Ground Transportation; Upon arrival the car service, The Greenbrier Transportation, will meet you 

outside of baggage claim. They will be identified by holding a sign with your name on it. If you have any 

problems locating your driver, please contact 304·536·1110 ext 7259. Your arrival transportation confirmation 

number is._. 
436 

You are scheduled to depart The Greenbrier on Tuesday August 4, 2015, The Greenbrier Transportation 

will meet you in the Front Main Entrance at 12:00PM. They wiU be identified by holding a sign with your 

name on lt. U you have any problems locating your driver, please contact 304-536·1110 ext 7259. Your 

departure confirmation number Is.._., 

Altmda: Please be prepared to attend4LL of the meetings and activities on your agenda. In order to support 

the continuous growth of RAGA it will be critical to spend as much time as possible with as many different 

members as possible. Please note, this agenda serves as your line by line for the meeting. 

SutJl!jjjrNJ&bt Dine Aroun!ls: You are confirmed to .attend the dinner at the Sam Sneads location. A dinner 

fact sheet Including a full list of attendees and menu will be provided in your folder at the business meeting. 

MQndayActhrlmYou are confirmed to participate In the'BunkerToui'. "'· 

AG Fund[aJsi!rs;.o\ttached is a booklet of AG and candidate fundraiser invitad~'!l:;.Y,o:~~welcom~to attend 

any and all ofthem.l know they would love to see you there. ~~~··· ::':'••. ''<; 0 

• 

Att1m; The attire for the meeting is business casiJ.al (T<!Ste 

casual). Denim and exercise attire are not peiliJltted in the 

· .. 

some venues eriforce a strict dress code Oacketand tie). Furthe.r infortl)i\ 

'"'' -,<~;: ... 

. ilg Re~ption Is resort 

st After 7:00 p.m., 

s code is enclosed. 

Scott WID Executive Director 

swj!l@republicanags.com 

c 515.783.7582 

'(: ~~>" c:;fr;~\ 

Jessica Medeiros Garrison Senior Advisor 

faarrjson@republlcanaiS cpm 

c 205.568.4371 
437 

SUMMER ~ NATIONAL 

MEETING~ 

MEETING AGENDA fi;, 

The Greenbrier • 300 West Main Street, White Sulphur Springs, WV • (lfSli} 616-2441 

· sat:vrda,i Au~st 1. 2015 '"""" 'i;;~\·<.::;;:~ :~:;;:::" A Cyber Lounge and Hospitality Suite are provided all day (or your convenience by!lel't'A,'Center i!l-the:Chesap"l'ke Bay Room 

5:40PM 

6:00PM- 8:00PM 

,..£:-:; ;,~~~-. ~~f-·· -. ,. 

Load Shuttles for West VIrginia Host Coriunittee Dinner 

Location: Front Main Entrance of the Hotel '·, • ':': •. ' 

West Virginia Host Committee Reception & Dln11er 

Location: Kate's Mountain Lodg~~· •. ,, ".:~:;,, '·~, 

Special Guest: Homer Hic~al,n - Ain,rflcii.n ~u~hor, Vl~tnam veteran, and a former 

NASA engineer. His autobiographical J)ovel.Rol:ket Boys: A Memoir, was a No. 1 

New York Times Best Seil~'r. and Was tfie basis t'br the 1999 film October Skv. £$~" i~~-., ,, .:'.·f.' .-,) 

sunduy. Aug,llst2. 2015 · ·t£ ''~~,. '2'~.,,., !f'' A Cyber Lounge and Hospitality Suite are provfded all day foryour~onveniertce by Rent·A·Center In the Chesapeake Bay Room '\\ ·:;,~-~ '}._ 

· .. -_:-.. , 

., ~'-. 

2:00PM -2:40PM ···. 

2:50PM-3:10PM 

3:15PM- 3:35PM 

3:40PM- 4:00PM 
438 

4:05PM- 4:25PM Private meeting with 21•• Century Fox 

•Attorneys General and StaffOnl,y 

Location: Eisenhower A & B 

4:30PM- 4:50PM Private meeting with Bruning Law Group 

•Attorneys General and StaffOnl,y 

Location: Eisenhower A & B 

5:30PM- 6:00PM New Member Private Reception with Attorneys General and Staff 

Location: Colonial Lounge 

6:00PM - 7:30PM Welcome Reception 

Location: Colonial Terrace 

7:30PM- 9:00PM ERC, Capital Club, Roundtable & Sponsors Breakout Dinners with Attorneys 

General 
439 

Monday. AQpst 3. 20lS 

A Cyber Lounge and Hospitality Suite are provfded aU day for your convenience by Rent-A-Center In the Chesapeake Bay Room 

room key to the walter. PleaSil note: l:lenlm and exert;l$e 

Tuesday.Au~Ust4.201S 

A Cybertounge and Hospitality Suite are provided all day for your convenience by Rent·A-Center in the Chesapeake Bay Room 

7:00AM- 10:30AM Breakfast (on your own) 

Location: Main Dining Room 

'*Breakfast is included/ please prcwlde your room key to the waiter. Pleo.SI! note: denim and e~ercise 

attire are not uermitted 
440 

RAGA 2015 NATIONAL MEETING SCHEDULE 

2015 Winter National Meeting February 22nd- 23rd, Park Hyatt: Washington, DC 

2015 Summer National Meeting August 1st- 4th, The Greenbrier: White Sulphur Springs, WV 

2015 Fall National Meeting November 14th -17th, The Phoenician: Scottsdale, AZ 

RAGA MEMBERSHIP LEVELS 

Edmund Randolph Club (ERC) ($125,000 annual contribution) 

Attorneys General Capital Club ($50,000 annual contribution) 

Attorneys General Roundtable ($25,000 annual contribution) 

Attorneys General Committee ($15,000 annual contributiq!V 

Attorneys General Forum ($10,000 annual contribl.ltion}'l£-

RAGASPONSORSHIPLEVE~ 

National Host Committee ($50,0Q,Ol~, 

WestVirg~nia Host Committee ($l$tlbtl-)~, 

Platmum Sponsor ($2S,OW>)<-- ~~!,, 

Gold Sponsor ($10,~Q90) -..;~~~ ~:~ 

Silver Sponsor ($5,000 '~" ~~ .. ;.,_ 

IF:~ ;·~ 
441 

Gtnngre.a.a nf tlJe lllnite~ ~fates 

Mas~ingtnn, £1(!1; 2U!il!i 

The Honorable Mitch McConnell 

Senate Majority Leader 

317 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

January 10,2017 

The Honorable Charles Schumer 

Senate Minority Leader 

322 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer, 

We write to express our steadfast support for President-elect Trump's nominee for Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, and to urge his swift 

confinnation by the Senate. 

Scott Pruitt is an accomplished leader in the state of Oklahoma, where he has earned respect and 

admiration from both sides of the aisle for his understanding of constitutional law and the role federal 

regulations ought to play in our nation's government. 

As Administrator of the EPA, Mr. Pruitt will serve America well by protecting our citizens' air and 

water through lawful and conunonsense regulations that follow congressional intent, fulfilling the 

original role of the agency. In doing so, he will ensure that the federal government does not propose 

rules with little to no health or environmental benefit at the cost of middle-class jobs and economic 

growth. 

Mr. Pruitt has considerable experience working on environmental and regulatory issues, and we have no 

doubt that be will bring a principled, balanced perspective to the EPA. We are proud ofhis service to 

our state, and we are confident he will do a superb job serving our nation and our citizens in this new 

role. 

Again, we urge Mr. Pruitt's swift confinnation so he can get to work protecting human health and the 

environment. The Oklahoma delegation is more than happy to meet with you, or members of the 

appropriate conunittees, to further discuss his confinnation. Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

;;}=~[!~(\>- ~ Frank D. Lucas Tom Cole 

}!JifAo:1~"":.C...:.I(.l:..Mue"m~b=::!e~r~ot.f-Co-'-c::J€74 

Steve Russell 

Member of Congress 

PAINTED ON R!CYQ.ED PAPER 
442 

During the first round of questions there was some dispute 

over when the lawsuit against Mahard Egg Farm Inc. was 

filed. I have here the complaint in that case- it was filed on 

May 18, 2011 by the EP, Attorney General Scott Pruitt and 

the Attorney General of Texas. 
443 

\FC· II-org'[l 

Case 3:11-cv-01031-N Document 1 FHed 05118111 Page 1 of33 Page!D f 

IN Tiffi UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR TilE NORTilERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Tim STATE OF TEXAS, ll!ld 

TilE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MAHARD.EOG FARM, INC., 

Defendant 

) 

) 

) 

} 

) 

) 

) 

} 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No.·,-----

RECEIVED 

MAY 23 2011 

AtTORNEY~ 

1. The United States of America, through its' undersigned attorneys, acting at the request of 

the Administrator. of the Environ,menlal Protection Agency ("EPA"); the S~ 9fTexas, 

by and through the Attomey.~ml ofTexas, on behalf of the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality ("TCEQ'!); and the State of Oklahoma, by and throu~ Attorney 

General, Scott ~ruitt, and the Oldahotna Departm!lllt of Agriculture,, Food and. Forestry 

. ("ODAFF'') and by and through their undersigned counsel. fill' this Cbmpla,int and allege 

as follows: 

L NATURE OF A.CfiON 

2. This is a civil action for injunctive relief an.d civil penalties against Deli:ndant Mahan! 

Egg Fann, Inc. ("MahardH or'~Defendant,, brought pursuant to Sections 309(b) and (d) 

ofthe Clean Water Act (''CWA" or "the Act''), 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b) and (d), fortbe 

discharge of poUutan!S from ~!rated Animal Feeding Operaticms ("CAPOs") 

without a permit in violation ofCWA Section 301,33 U.S.C. § 1311; forfailure to 
444 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Since the Ranking Member mentioned that Mr. Joe Goffman had 

visited, I call to the attention in beseeching you that when you are 

successfully the Administrator at the EPA that you will listen to 

everybody and come to States that are most directly affected. He 

mentioned that the Associate Assistant Administrator had made 

the long list that he had said. 

I would like to point out a clarification. The EPA announced on 

September 30th, a day I will remember because that is the birthday of my youngest child, they announced where they were going 

to be going for their listening sessions. They went to Boston, they 

went to New York City, they went to Philadelphia, they went to Atlanta, they went to Denver, they went to Lenaxa, Kansas, and I 

wish our Kansas Senator was here, which I have looked up is a 

part of the Kansas City metropolitan area. They went to San Francisco. They went to Washington, DC. They went to Dallas, they 

went to Seattle, they went to Chicago. 

My State in the last 5 years has lost 10,000 jobs, not wholly because of this, but some of this plays a large part. So I will go back 

to my original request, that the people that are affected by this environmentally and health-wise are just as important as the people 

who stand to lose their jobs over this, who then are plunged into 

poverty, who then have hopelessness around and in their communities, who then become addicted to drugs and other opioids. It is 

just a cascading issue. Their lives are just as important. So that 

is my plea on that. 

Now, last question from me. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a unanimous consent 

request? 

Senator BARRASSO. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. I am sorry for interrupting. But the document 

with respect to the outreach that the EPA did, in conjunction with 

the Clean Power Plan, it shows from October, I think October 16th, 

2014, something like this, the document records nearly 1,000 meetings, calls, presentations, conferences, consultations, 1,000, and 

other outreach with stakeholders. The document shows these postproposal interactions included more than 300 meetings with State 

and local stakeholders, had 30 discussions with tribes, 450 meetings with industry stakeholders, 150 discussions in environmental 

justice and scientific stakeholders, dozens more discussions with 

conveners. And this goes on and on and on. 

In total, the agency received almost 4.3 million comments about 

all aspects of the proposed rule, more than any rule in EPA history, 

and thousands of people participated in the agency’s public hearings, Webinars, listening sessions, and so forth, all across the country. The agency made many revisions in the final rule in response 

to those comments. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. I would ask that once a questioner starts, they be allowed to continue. We could get into a 

lengthy discussion. The EPA was found guilty of covert propaganda 

for soliciting information through a number of environmental 

groups. It continues to be a blot on the record of the EPA, and the 

question of this entire Administration and their approach toward 
445 

abilities toward the rule of law versus an EPA out of control. So 

we are going to allow the questioner to continue. 

Back to you, Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Not to beat a dead horse, but to try—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CAPITO. I will say that the Assistant Administrator 

McCabe, when she was telling me that they only wanted to go 

where places were comfortable, she looked at me and said, Senator, 

we are going to Pittsburgh. Gee. Thanks a lot. Which is not in 

West Virginia, I will make that point. 

In any event, my question is—you have said a lot about States, 

and I agree, the States should have the primacy, it is in the law. 

And that is something that, part of why you have brought suit and 

part of the reason you have been successful with other attorneys 

general. 

Let me ask you a question. Let’s say you have a State where you 

are the administrator of the EPA, and you deem that that State’s 

Office of Environmental Quality, or DEP, which is what it is in 

West Virginia, just doesn’t measure up. They are not protecting 

their people’s health, they are not enforcing the law. They are, in 

your judgment and folks that you are working with, are not up to 

the task and are letting their people down. 

What avenues of correction would you have at the EPA, and do 

you have, and what would you exercise in that kind of category, 

and what kind of judgments would have to be made for those 

things to occur? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, I really appreciate the question. I think 

there are times where States are recalcitrant, that they don’t perform the obligations that they have, let’s say, under the Clean Air 

Act, in adopting a State implementation plan, or as they adopt the 

State implementation plan they don’t take into consideration all 

the factors that Congress had put in the statute and the EPA requires. In those instances it is very appropriate for the EPA to use 

its authority like a Federal implementation plan to take over that 

jurisdiction and to ensure that the safety and health of our citizens 

is protected, and the air quality is maintained, and water quality 

is maintained. 

So there is a time and place for that. I think in many instances, 

however, over the last several years, it has been the first response 

as opposed to cooperation. And a Federal implementation plan is 

absolutely in order at times. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, before you start my clock, I 

would like to follow up on Senator Inhofe’s strategy here of submitting certain facts back for the record. I would ask unanimous consent to submit for the record an article from the Union of Concerned Scientists related to the so-called ClimateGate that the Senator referred to earlier. That notes that the manufactured controversy over e-mails stolen from the university has generated a lot 

of heat but not light. The e-mail content being quoted does not indicate climate data research has been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of the stolen e-mails has any impact 
446 

on our overall understanding of human activities driving dangerous 

levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that 

they do are inaccurate. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
447 

1. FIGHT MISINFORMATION 

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen 

Climate Emails in the "Climategate" 

Manufactured Controversy 

The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East 

Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The 

email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research 

have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these 

stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human 

activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and 

contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate. 

Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing 

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of 

wrongdoing. 

• A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of 

wrongdoing. 

• Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the 

honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit." 

• A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our 

understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are 

misleading. 

• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's 

office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their 

employees. 
448 

o The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, 

"Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct ... we are closing this 

investigation with no further action." 

Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the 

emails. 

o The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action 

to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in 

the stolen emails. 

• Factcheck.org debunked claims that the em ails put the conclusions of climate 

science into question. 

o Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false." 

o An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the 

vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made 

greenhouse gas emissions." 

Background Information 

o Scientists Statement-An Open Letter to Congress from U.S. Scientists on 

Climate Change and Recently Stolen Emails (pdf) 

• Letter from James McCarthy, a former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change lead author, to Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) (pdf) 

Press Releases and Factchecks 

• Nov. 23, 2009-Contrarians Using Hacked E-mails to Attack Climate 

Science 

• Dec. 02, 2009-Members of Congress Advance Climate Change Conspiracy 

Theories 

o Dec. 02, 2009-More Scientists Join Call to Reject Stolen E-mail Claims 

o Dec. 04, 2009-Top U.S. Scientists Tell Congress Stolen Emails Have No 

Bearing on Climate Science 

• Dec. 17, 2009-Factcheck: Sen. Inhofe Can't Even Get the Dates Right on 

Stolen Emails 
449 

• Dec. 18, 2009-UCS Urges Rep. Sensenbrenner to Stop Attacking Scientists 

• Dec. 23, 2009-Patrick Michales Falsely Blaims Content of Stolen Emails 

for Resignations at Climate Science Journal 

Additional Resources 

• Real Climate has been following the hacked e-mail story with posts from 

scientists explaining what phrases in various e-mails mean. 

• Phil Jones did an interview with the The Guardian on thee-mails. 

• Michael Mann covered several of the claims on DeSmog Blog. 

• Michael Mann responded to an op-ed by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin 

in the Washington Post. 

Some news organizations have misreported critical aspects of the stolen 

email story. There is no evidence scientists did anything with temperature 

data they weren't already doing openly in peer-reviewed papers. 

At this time, there is no evidence that scientists "fudged," "manipulated" or 

"manufactured" data. These unsupported claims, based on taking the emails 

out of context, are being promoted by long-time anti-science opponents of 

climate change legislation. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC), the University of East Anglia and Penn State University are 

separately looking into the contents of the stolen emails to assess these 

claims. 

While the emails have raised some concerns, the email content being quoted 

does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. 

Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any 

impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving 

dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that 

they do are inaccurate. 

University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit Director Phil Jones wasn't 

"hiding" anything that wasn't already being openly discussed in scientific 

papers. He was using a "trick"-a technique-published in the peer-reviewed 

scientific literature. 
450 

This email exchange from 1999 seems to refer to scientists examining past 

climate data and communicating with one another about it. In particular, 

Jones is talking about how scientists compare temperature data from 

thermometers with temperature data derived from tree rings. Comparing that 

data allows scientists to derive past temperature data for several centuries 

before accurate thermometer measurements were available. The global 

average surface temperature since 1880 is based on thermometer and satellite 

temperature measurements. 

The "trick" is actually a technique (in other words, a "trick of the trade") used 

in a peer-reviewed, academic science journal article published in 1998. 

"Hiding the decline," another phrase that has received much attention, refers 

to another technique used in another academic science journal article. In any 

case, no one was tricking anyone or hiding anything. Rather, this email 

exchange shows scientists communicating about different ways to look at the 

same data that were being discussed at the time in the peer-reviewed 

literature. Later the same data were discussed at length in a 2007 IPCC 

report. 

In some parts of the world, tree rings are a good substitute for temperature 

record. Trees form a ring of new growth every growing season. Generally, 

warmer temperatures produce thicker tree rings, while colder temperatures 

produce thinner ones. Other factors, such as precipitation, soil properties, and 

the tree's age also can affect tree ring growth. 

The "trick," which was used in a paper published in 1998 in the science 

journal Nature, is to combine the older tree ring data with thermometer data. 

Combining the two data sets can be difficult, and scientists are always 

interested in new ways to make temperature records more accurate. 

Tree rings are a largely consistent source of data for the past 2,000 years. But 

since the 1960s, scientists have noticed there are a handful of tree species in 

certain areas that appear to indicate temperatures that are warmer or colder 

than we actually know they are from direct thermometer measurement at 

weather stations. 
451 

"Hiding the decline" in this email refers to omitting data from some Siberian 

trees after 1960. This omission was openly discussed in the latest climate 

science update in 2007 from the IPCC, so it is not "hidden" at all. 

Why Siberian trees? In the Yamal region of Siberia, there is a small set of 

trees with rings that are thinner than expected after 1960 when compared 

with actual thermometer measurements there. Scientists are still trying to 

figure out why these trees are outliers. Some analyses have left out the data 

from these trees after 1960 and have used thermometer temperatures instead. 

Techniques like this help scientists reconstruct past climate temperature 

records based on the best available data. 

In another email, Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center 

for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, wrote that systems for observing 

short-term annual climate variation are inadequate and complained: "The fact 

is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a 

travesty that we can't .... Our observing system is inadequate." 

Scientists have high confidence about global temperature trends over recent 

decades because those observations are based on a massive amount of data. 

That's why we can say with certainty that over the past several decades, the 

Earth has warmed. We can also say with certainty that continuing to overload 

the atmosphere with carbon dioxide will cause it to warm further. 

But scientists are still trying to understand how the climate shifts in the short 

term, on a year-to-year basis for instance. In this email, Trenberth is 

bemoaning the lack of monitoring equipment in the ocean and atmosphere 

around the world that would give scientists more information to help 

understand exactly how short-term climate variation happens. In particular, 

he references 2008, which was cooler than scientists expected, but still 

among the 10 warmest years since instrumental records began. 

The sentiments in Trenberth's private email reflect his public communication. 

Trenberth talked about this same issue in a scientific paper in 2009 (pdf), in 

which he addresses this exact question. 
452 

There is no clear evidence to date that scientists violated important principles 

of scientific integrity. And the emails do not undermine the science. 

Some emails relating to avoiding freedom of information requests and 

keeping articles out of journals have raised concerns about scientific 

integrity. Scientists should always be as open as possible with their data and 

methods. Transparency is critical for accountability on all sides. For his part, 

Phil Jones claims he didn't delete any email messages in response to freedom 

of information requests. Ifhe did, that conduct would be wrong. But to date, 

there is no evidence that any emails were deleted. 

Science must be viewed in context. When one places the emails in context, 

they don't amount to much-and as noted above, they do not undermine 

climate data or research. Likewise, it is important to understand the scientific 

integrity claims against the scientists in context. 

Regardless of whether the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit 

staff complied with freedom of information requests, their data is still 

rigorous and matches the three other independent temperature data sets at 

NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the 

Japanese Meteorological Society. 

Much has been made about emails regarding a certain paper that some 

scientists did not think should have been published in a peer-reviewed 

academic journal. These emails focus on a paper on solar variability in the 

climate over time. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal called Climate 

Research, but under unusual circumstances. Half of the editorial board 

of Climate Research resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of 

the peer review process. The paper, which argued that current warming was 

unexceptional, was disputed by scientists whose work was cited in the paper. 

Many subsequent publications set the record straight, which 

demonstrates how the peer review process over time tends to correct such 

lapses. Scientists later discovered that the paper was funded by the American 

Petroleum Institute. 

In a later e-mail, Phil Jones references two other papers he didn't hold in high 

esteem. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. 
453 

Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what 

the peer-review literature is!" 

Yet, the papers in question made it into the IPCC report, indicating that no 

restrictions on their incorporation were made. The IPCC process contains 

hundreds of authors and reviewers, with an exacting and transparent review 

process. 

The fact that groups opposing action on climate change are crying 

"conspiracy" shows how desperate they are to discredit scientists. 

The thousands of stolen emails span more than a decade. Whoever stole them 

could only produce a handful of messages that, when taken out of context, 

might seem suspicious to people who are not familiar with the intimate 

details of climate science. 

Opponents of climate action have been attacking climate science for years. 

The fact that out-of-context personal attacks on scientists are the most 

successful argument they can offer speaks volumes about their failure to gain 

any traction by arguing against the evidence. 

Their strategy has unfortunate consequences, too. On December 8, the 

Guardian reported that University of East Anglia scientists have 

been receiving death threats. 

The timing of the publication of these emails should make us suspicious 

about the motivations of the people who hacked them. 

The stolen emails were published just two weeks ahead of a major U.N. 

climate change conference in Copenhagen. According to a British newspaper, 

they were originally hacked in October. Whoever published these emails 

likely wanted to spread misinformation about climate science to try to 

undermine the conference. The University of East Anglia, which housed the 

emails, has launched an investigation to determine who stole them. 

Scientists are as human as anybody else. 

Some of the other emails simply show scientists expressing frustration andin one email--even talking (not seriously, we hope) about beating up 
454 

someone who had, in his view, made an unfair, public attack 

on his colleague. Such chatter is not surprising to find in private emails. But 

they have generated widespread attention in part because they don't mesh 

with the public's image of scientists. 

Scientists have a wide array of dispositions. But regardless of how scientists 

act, they should all advance their arguments through evidence and valid 

scientific interpretations. The process of science is what is important. Over 

time, rigorous analyses, vetted through expert peer review, tend to weed out 

poorly substantiated arguments. And only the best explanations for how the 

world works-such as the obvious evidence that excess carbon dioxide 

emissions are driving global warming-survive the process. 
455 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Chairman, since my name was invoked, let 

me respond. Were you listening when I talked about the various 

publications that have come and talked about how fraudulent it 

was? These are publications, science publications, they have gone 

in and made their own evaluations. And for the U.K. Telegraph to 

say it is the worst scientific scandal for our generation, that is very 

extreme. 

Senator MERKLEY. We could have an entire day dedicated to the 

review of the scientific literature on this, and it would weigh very 

heavily on the scales in the direction I have indicated in support 

of the information presented by the Union of Concerned Scientists. 

We may just have to agree to disagree. That is why I submitted 

it for the record; we will let the public decide. 

Senator INHOFE. And that is why the statement is repeated over 

and over again about the science is settled, that is not an accurate 

statement. 

Senator BARRASSO. I would invite the Senator to question the 

witness. 

Senator MERKLEY. The beauty of the Senate is we get to have 

our own opinions. 

Meanwhile, I also wanted to submit for the record in response, 

when I was speaking about asthma, Mr. Chairman, you submitted 

a study from the National Black Chamber of Commerce. And it is 

important to note that that organization has been funded by the 

American Petroleum Institute, by a Koch Brothers front group, and 

by Exxon, and that there is a series of responses that invoke the 

opposite side of that, and the NAACP, which certainly speak for a 

broad swath of African Americans, takes a very, very different 

stance. And it had endorsed the Clean Power Plan. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
456 

[ 

Unionof d • • £~n~~!2!~Ianet~~~~!JSts National Black Chamber of Commerce 

Report on Clean Power Plan 

Fact: The NBCC study relies on misleading claims cut-and-pasted from several 

previously debunked reports. 

NBC C I National Black 

Chan1ber of Con1n1en:eCID 

JUNE 2015 
457 

A misleading report by the National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC) 

has been frequently cited by opponents of the Environmental Protection 

Agency's (EPA) Clean Power Plan, including in the Wall Street Journal. 

Our review of the NBCC report found that it relies on misleading claims cutand-pasted from several previously debunked reports. For example, the 

NBCC's analysis relies on false claims from a 2014 U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce report that received scant attention in the media after a fact check 

by the Washington Post concluded politicians "should have avoided using the 

Chamber's numbers in the first place." 

Harry Alford, president and CEO of the NBCC, is also a leading member of 

the U.S. Chamber, which opposes minimum wage increases and living wage 

laws. Alford acknowledges that his group has received funding from wealthy 

fossil fuel interests, including $1 million from ExxonMobil. NBCC 

commissioned Roger Bezdek of Management Information Services, Inc., to 

author its report. Bezdek's client list includes Peabody Energy, one of the 

world's largest producers of industrial carbon emissions. 

Elsewhere, Alford has falsely claimed that "there is no sound science to 

support the claims of global warming." Bezdek has likened concerns raised 

by climate advocates to "the old Nazi theory, that if you repeat a big lie loud 

enough and long enough, people believe it." 

In contrast, the NAACP, U.S. Black Chamber, and other leading 

organizations support the Clean Power Plan for providing ways to address the 

disproportionate risks African-American communities face from air pollution 

and climate change. These include the Clean Energy Incentive Program in the 

final Clean Power Plan, which is designed to spur new investment in energy 

efficiency and help low-income communities create jobs and save money. 

Other African-American and Latino leaders have also spoken out against the 

NBCC's misleading claims. 
458 

Learn more: 

• New Flawed Study of the Clean Power Plan: How the NBCC Study Gets It 

So Wrong (The Equation) 

• National Black Chamber ofCommercejoins oil industry's op-ed campaign 

against the EPA Climate Plan 

• ExxonMobil is still spending millions of dollars on climate science deniers 

Last revised date: August 19, 2015 
459 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

I would also like to submit for the record two articles or two 

statements from the National Congress of American Indians and 

from Latino organizations, a whole group of Latino organizations, 

that are very concerned about this nomination. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
460 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

PRESIDENT 

BrianCiadoosby 

Swlnomisi!Tnbe 

FIRST ViCE-PRESIDENT 

Fa'M'IShaiV 

Qumau/1/nd!anNafKln 

RECORDING SECRETARY 

Aaron Payment 

Sault Ste Marie Tnbe of Chippewa 

lndtansofMtchJgan 

TREASURER 

W.RonAUen 

Jamestown S'K/allam Tnbe 

REGIONAL Vlc~­

PRESIDENTS 

ALASKA 

Jerry lane 

Natr..e Vi/lageofTan11cross 

EASTERN OKLAHOMA 

Joe Byrd 

CherokeeNabon 

GREAT PLAINS 

Leander M~oonald 

SpintL<~keNaflon 

MIDWEST 

Roger Rader 

PukagonSandr;fPotawatomi 

NOFHHEAST 

Lan~eGLll11tls 

Sh!nnecocklndJanNatJon 

NoRTHWEST 

Mel Sheldon, Jr. 

TulaltpTnbes 

PACIFIC 

JaekPotter,Jr. 

Reddlfi<}Rancheria 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN 

Darr1n Old Coyote CrowNalton 

SouTH<"AST 

l.arryTO'M'IM!nd 

LumbeeTnbe 

SouTHERN PLAINS 

Lla~Onnoen 

Pra!fle Band ofPotawa/omi Nertln 

SOUTHWEST 

JoeGar~la 

Qhkay Ow!ngeh Pueblo 

WESTERN 

Brucelgn..clo 

U/e/ndtanTnbe 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

JacquelinePata 

Tlmgit 

NCAI HEADQUARTERS 

1516 P Street. N.W 

Washington. DC 20005 

202 466 7767 

202.466 7797 fax 

www nca1 org 

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS 

Jammy 18,2016 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairma11 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public \\'arks 

410 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Thomas Carper 

Rankine~ Member 

lJ.S. Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Building 

\X'ashington, DC 20510 

Re: Indian Country's Concerns with EPA Administrator Nominee Scott Pruitt 

Dear Chairman Ilarrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), the oldest, 

largest, and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native organization 

serving the broad interests of Tribal governments and communities, I am writing to 

express our deep concern '\v:ith the nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott 

Pruitt to be the "~dministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EP"~) based 

on his history of fighting environmental regulations and the new Administration's 

statements denying the existence of climate change. The continuing impacts of 

climate change are a major concern of Tribal Nations and, before this Committee 

votes to move forward '-Vith Attorney General Pruitt's nomination to lead the EPA, 

it must thoroughly consider the potential impacts that his nomination \vill have on 

climate change, the protection of natural resources, and protection of Tribal trust 

and treaty rights. 

American Indians and Alaska Natives are disproportionately impacred by 

climate change due to our geographical areas and direct connection and reliance on 

the surrounding environments. It is threatening to destroy our lands, waters, and 

natural resources) ·which will impact our traditional and customary ways of life that 

has been sustainable for thousands of years. ']he well-documented plight of "~Iaska 

Native villages is probably the most profound manifestation of the climate crisis and 

requires focused, high priority attention from the federal government. NC~I's Tribal 

leadership and members have spoken strongly on climate change by passing four 

resolutions in the past four years calling for action and setting Tribal Climate Change 

Principles calling on further federal action and partnership with Tribal governments. 

The federal government's treaty and trust responsihilities to protect Indian 

lands includes the duty to protect lands from the impacts of climate change, which 

requires not only that sufficient federal resources be equitably allocated to address 

climate change, but that Tribes be included as partners to solve these issues. Federal 

programs and policies must allow Triball'\ations to engage effectively in adaptation 

and mitigation strategies that will help ensure the integrity of our cultures, 

homelands, infrastructures, and services. Further} it is imperatiYe that federal 

agencies enforce Tribal treaty and reserved rights to both on- and off-reservation 

resources. 
461 

NCAI Letter- Climate Change Concerns Regarding Pruitt EPA Administrator Nomination 

Page 2 of2 

The EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment means that it plays an 

essential role in fighting climate change-related impacts. Due to its charge, EPA also has a sacred 

responsibility to uphold and protect Tribal trust and treaty rights through the protection of Tribal 

natural resources. In fact, the EPA acknowledges the importance of reviev.~ng how agency actions 

will impact treaty rights in its recent policy guidance EPA Policy 011 Comultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribes: Guidancefor Discussing T dbal Treaty Rights. 

Since the EPA is critical to combating climate change and protecting Tribal trust and treaty 

rights, Indian Country is deeply concerned with Attorney General Pruitt's nomination to head the 

Agency. It is our understanding that, in his role as Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma, 

Pruitt has repeatedly filed suits against the EPA for its regulations seeking to protect the 

environment. Further, his nomination comes from an incoming Administration which claims that 

climate change is a "hoax" and questions whether the EPA should continue to exist. 

This Committee must ensure that Attorney General Pruitt understands and acknowledges 

the realities of human impacts on global climate change, the need for the EPA and federal 

regulations to protect the environment, and the importance of EPA's role in protecting Tribal lands, 

waters, and natural resources. We must get his commitment on the record to sustain the EPA's role 

in fighting climate change and protecting Tribal trust and treaty rights. Without these 

acknowledgments, Indian Country cannot support Attorney General Pruitt's nomination for 

Administrator of the EPA. 

We are at a critical moment in combating the increasing climate changes effects from 

human-made sources. Indian Country, the United States, and the world cannot afford to take a 

backseat role in fighting climate change. 

Sincerely, 

Brian Cladoosby 

President 

Enclosed: 

NCAI Resolution #PHX-16-058- United States 'Federal Agency Con.rultation, Consent, 'flmding. and 

Actions to Address Climate Cnange Impacts to Tdbal Treaty and T mJt Resource.r 

NCAI Resolution #SD-15-007- Calling on the United Nations Framework Com;ention on Climate Change to 

Adopt an Agreement that Upholds the Rtghts of Indigenous Peoples 

NCAI Resolution #SD-15-024- Supportfor the Tn'bal Climate Change Principles: Responding to federal 

Policies and .1ctions to Addres.r Climate Change document and itJ Swift Implementation by the Federal Government 

NCAI Resolution #REN ~ 13-020 -Adopting Guida11ce Princtples to Address the Impacts of Climate Change 
462 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

PRESIDENT 

BrianCiadoosby 

Swinomi.sh Tribe 

FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT 

Fawn Sharp 

Quinau/llr1duanNation 

RECORDING SECRETARY 

Aaron Payment 

sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa 

lnd!ilnsofMichigan 

TREASURER 

W.RonAI!en 

Jamestown S"K/a/Jam Ttibe 

REGIONAL VICE~ 

PRESIDENTS 

AlASKA 

Jonylsaac 

Nalivr; Village of Tanacross 

EASTERN OKLAHOMA 

Joe Byrd 

CherokeeNatJon 

GREAT PLAINS 

leander McDonald 

SP!ri!LakeNahon 

MIDWEST 

RogerRadM 

PokilgQnBandofPolawalorni 

NORTHEAST 

LancoGumbs 

ShmnaoxklndianNation 

NORTHWEST 

'"!Sheldon, Jr. 

TulalipTnbas 

PACIFIC 

Jack Potter, Jr. 

ReddingRancheria 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN 

Damn Old Coyote 

Crow Nation 

SoUTHEAST 

LanyTowns.end 

Li..mbeeTnbe 

SOUTHERN PLAINS 

Liana Onnen 

PraiOO Band of Pulawstomi Nation 

SOUTHWEST 

Joe Garcia 

OhkayOwint)ehPooblo 

WESTERN 

Bruce Ignacio 

Uteindtan Tribe 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

JaequaUnePaLa 

1lingit 

NCAI HEADQUARTERS 

1516PStreet, N.W 

Washington, DC 20005 

202.466.7767 

202.466.7797 fax 

www.nca1 org 

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS 

The National Congress of American Indians 

Resolution #PHX-16-058 

TITLE: United States Federal Agency Consultation, Consent, Funding, and 

Actions to Address Climate Change Impacts to Trihal Treaty and Trust 

Resources 

WHEREAS, we, the members of the National Congress of American Indians 

of the United States, invoking the divine blessing of the Creator upon our e!Torts and 

purposes, in order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the inherent sovereign 

rights of our Indian nations, rights secured under Indian treaties and agreements with 

the United States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are entitled under the 

laws and Constitution of the United States, to enlighten the public toward a better 

understanding of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and otherwise 

promote the health, safety and welfare of the Indian people, do hereby establish and 

submit the following resolution; and 

WHEREAS, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was 

established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national organization of American 

Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments; and 

WHEREAS, Indigenous peoples in the U.S., including 567 federallyrecognized Tribes, are facing immediate and significant impacts from climate change; 

and 

WHEREAS, a growing body of literature illustrates the unique issues facing 

Tribes regarding climate change, including the recently developed Primer on Climate 

Change and Indigenous Peoples, Guidelines for Considering Traditional Know/edges 

{TKs) in Climate Change Initiatives, and the special issue of the peer-reviewed journal 

Climatic Change, Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples in the United States: 

Impacts, Experiences and Actions; and 

WHEREAS, futthermore, the federal government is beginning to 

acknowledge the disproportionate threats of climate change to Indigenous Peoples 

through administrative and congressional reports such as the 3'J National Climate 

Assessment and the 2014 President's State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on 

Climate Preparedness and Resilience (Task Force); and 

WHEREAS, where the Northwest Tribes commit to the development of 

guiding principles and exploration of the possibility of creating a unified mechanism 

to incorporate the principles into an action plan to address the impacts of climate 

change that will protect our treaty rights, inherent and indigenous rights, including 

those contained in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights ofindigenous Peoples 

(Declaration), our health and the health of the environment, economies, and way of 

life; and 
463 

NCAI 2016 Annual Resolution PHX-1 6-058 

WHEREAS, based upon eight principles developed by the Northwest Tribes to guide the 

federal government in the development and implementation of administrative and legislative 

actions related to Indigenous Peoples and climate change; and 

WHEREAS, the principles address many of the recommendations made by the Task Force 

and these principles pertain directly to federally-recognized Tribes, but may also apply indirectly to 

state-recognized Tribes and unrecognized Tribes as they are also in need of support to address 

immediate and projected climate impacts and to ensure access to climate resources; and 

WHEREAS, adequate response to the threat of climate change requires action by Tribes 

and federal, state and local governments and the U.S. federal government's trust responsibility to 

federally-recognized Tribes includes the protection of Indian lands and Tribal rights to access those 

lands as well as those lands in which treaty and trust resources are held; and 

WHEREAS, the trust responsibility includes the duty to protect lands from the impacts of 

climate change. Federal resources to address climate change must be allocated to Tribes equitably 

and in sufficient quantity so that Tribes can engage effectively in adaptation and mitigation 

strategies that will help ensure the integrity of their cultures, homelands, infrastructures, and 

services; and enforce Tribal treaty and reserved rights to both on- and off-reservation resources; and 

WHEREAS, in FY 2016, the Department of Interior awarded $8.6 million through the 

Tribal Climate Resilience Program, but the total amount requested from tribes exceeded $25.5 

million and these requested funds do not take into account the needs among tribes facing 

displacement and relocation, emergency management and infrastructure, impacts to culturally 

important plants, fish and wildlife species, and public health impacts, among others; and 

WHEREAS, the current Administration has taken strides that support Tribal measures to 

cope with climate change and environmental justice, including, but not limited to, the November 5, 

2009, Executive Memo directing agency heads to submit a detailed plan of actions that agencies 

will take to implement the policies; Executive Order 13175 - Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments; and Department of Interior Secretarial Order 3289 - Addressing the 

Impacts of Climate Change on America's Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resource; 

and Executive Order 12898- Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations; and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Executive Order 13175, U.S. federal agencies have a legal 

obligation to effectively engage in Government-to-Government consultations with consent from 

Tribes on all climate change issues, including representation in international organizations, formal 

consultation in the extraction, transport and export of coal, oil and natural gas, and representation 

on federal climate change adaptation and mitigation initiatives including the United Nations 

Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP 21 Paris Agreement. 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Congress of American 

Indians does strongly urge that U.S. federal agencies immediately engage and work with individual 

tribes on a Government-to-Government basis and conduct formal and effective consultations to 

reach and agree to consent to address the climate change issues unique to each tribe including treaty 

and reserved rights, and the management of and access to trust resources on ceded and ancestral 

lands; and 

Page 2 of 4 
464 

NCAI 2016 Annual Resolution PHX-16-058 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI calls upon Congress and the Administration to 

work with federal agencies, the Office of Management and Budget, the Government Accountability 

Office and others to identify the full costs facing tribes from the impacts of climate change and to 

ensure that federal budget allocations for tribes to address climate are adequate; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI also calls upon all federal agencies, 

specifically the Department of Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs, with tribal climate change 

programs, to work with tribes to review the categories for fund dispersal and ensure their 

effectiveness for meeting tribal goals and needs; specifically, NCAI recommends Tribes and 

intertribal consortia conduct a review of the 9 categories for the BIA Climate Change Grants and 

provide feedback about the efficacy of those categories, establish priorities where funds should be 

allocated, and recommendations for strengthening and sustaining Tribal capacity including: 

Sustained and long-term funding to support the needs of tribes to engage in climate 

change adaptation and mitigation. 

Concept of coordinated block funding - multiple sources of funding that are coalesced 

to reduce the burden to tribes and increase flexibility of tribal allocation of funds. 

Capacity building funding to focus on engaging tribal leadership and building the 

knowledge of tribal leaders. 

Engaging and building the knowledge of tribal leadership and native communities 

through education and outreach. 

Dedicated funding for tribal staff to work on climate change to build internal tribal 

capacity; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI in consultation with regional consortia and 

Tribal governments, organize and establish a National Tribal Climate Change Workgroup to 

develop strategies and coordinate actions to ensure effective implementation of the Tribal Climate 

Change Principles: Responding To Federal Policies And Actions To Address Climate Change and 

Government-to-Government consultations with and consent from Tribes related to climate change 

impacts, adaptation, mitigation, and funding to meet the needs of Tribal governments and 

communities; and 

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be the policy ofNCAI until it is 

withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution. 

Page 3 of 4 
465 

NCAI 2016 Annual Resolution PHX-16-058 

CERTIFICATION 

The foregoing resolution was adopted by the General Assembly at the 2016 Annual Session of the 

National Congress of American Indians, held at the Phoenix Convention Center, October 9'h_ 141

h 

20 16, with a quorum present. 

ATTEST: 

Page 4 of 4 
466 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

PRESIDENT 

BrianCiadooaby 

Swinom!ShTnbe 

FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT 

RandyNoka 

NarragafiS6ft.Tnbe 

RECORDING SECRETARY 

AaronPaymt~nt 

Sault Ste Marie Tnbe of Chippewa 

Indians of Michigan 

TREASURER 

W.RonAIIen 

.Jamestown S'Klallam Tnbe 

REGIONAL VICE~ 

PRES1DENTS 

AlASKA 

Jerry Isaac 

NativeV!J/agecfTanacross 

EASTERN OKLAHOMA 

Joe Byrd 

Cherokee~I!On 

GREAT PLAINS 

Lunder McDonald 

Spm/La/«.!Nation 

MIDWEST 

Roger Rader PokagonBanQofPolawa/rJm! 

NORTHEAST 

Lan~Gumbs 

ShmnecocklndumNation 

NoRTHWEST 

Fawn Sharp 

Qumau/tlndianNatiDrt 

PACIFIC 

Jack Potter, Jr. 

ReddmgRilncheri<l 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN 

Damn Old Coyote 

CrowNatJon 

SOUTHEAST 

LarryTo\fllnsend 

LumbeeT!Ibe 

SouTHERN PLAINS 

UanaOnoon 

Prairie BanQ of POOJwatcmi Nation 

Joe Garcia 

Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo 

WESTERN 

Brucelgllllcio 

Utelndtan Tnbe 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

JacquetinePata 

n"9'1 

NCAI HEADQUARTERS 

1516 P Street, N.W 

Washmgton, DC 20005 

202.4667767 

202.466.7797 fax www.nca1 org 

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS 

The National Congress of American Indians 

Resolution #SD-15-007 

TITLE: Calling on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 

Change to Adopt an Agreement that Upholds the Rights of Indigenous 

Peoples 

WHEREAS, we, the members of the National Congress of American Indians 

of the United States, invoking the divine blessing of the Creator upon our efforts and 

purposes, in order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the inherent sovereign 

rights of our Indian nations, rights secured under Indian treaties and agreements with 

the United States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are entitled under the 

laws and Constitution of the United States, to enlighten the public toward a better 

understanding of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and otherwise 

promote the health, safety and welfare of the Indian people, do hereby establish and 

submit the following resolution; and 

WHEREAS, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was 

established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national organization of American 

Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments; and 

WHEREAS, climate change is one of the greatest threat facing the peoples of 

the world today; and 

WHEREAS, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food 

stated in 20 I 0 that Climate Change is the single biggest threat to global food security 

in the future; and 

WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 

composed of thousands of scientists from around the world, has found that Indigenous 

Peoples are among the peoples most vulnerable to climate change and are 

disproportionately affected by it; and 

WHEREAS, Indigenous Peoples depend upon the health of their ecosystems 

and natural resources for social, economic, and cultural vitality; and climate change 

threatens to destroy indigenous ways of life that have been sustainable for thousands 

of years; and 

WHEREAS, climate change thus poses a serious threats to the inherent and 

Treaty rights of Indigenous Peoples as affirmed in the United Nations Declaration on 

the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including, inter alia, rights to subsistence, 

traditional lands and resources, health, productive capacity of the environment, 

cultural heritage, sacred sites and free prior and informed consent; and 
467 

NCAI 2015 Annual Resolution SD-15-007 

WHEREAS, the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

(UNFCCC) will meet in Paris at the end of 2015 to reach a universally binding agreement to 

address climate change; and 

WHEREAS, the goal of the UNFCCC as stated in its Article 2 is: "to achieve . . . 

stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent 

dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system .... ;''and 

WHEREAS, that goal as presently contemplated by States is to keep temperature rise 

within 2 degrees C, however, Indigenous Peoples and many scientists consider this goal to be 

inadequate to protect the ways of life of Indigenous Peoples as well as the survival of small island 

states and Peoples; and 

WHEREAS, in connection with an ongoing review of the adequacy of the 2 degree C goal, 

the Structured Expert Dialog, (SED) report concludes that at 2 degrees C of warming, 

" ... indigenous people[s] would be at risk of loss of land and cultural and natural heritage, and 

cultural practices embedded in livelihoods would be disrupted"; therefore Indigenous Peoples are 

calling for that goal to be lowered to no more than 1.5 degrees C of warming at COP 2 I. 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Congress of American 

Indians (NCAI) calls on the Parties to the UNFCCC at the 21" Conference of the Parties (COP 21) 

in Paris to adopt an agreement with a strong human rights based approach reflected in the operative 

provisions of the agreement and which covers all aspects of the agreement such as mitigation, 

adaptation, finance, technology transfer, transparency and capacity building, and specifically 

recognizes the rights of Indigenous Peoples; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI calls on the State Parties to adopt a goal of a 

temperature rise of no more than 1.5 degrees C of warming, with a review to ascertain if that should 

be further lowered to no more than I degree C of warming; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI calls upon the States Parties to recognize in 

the final agreement respect for and use, with free, prior, and informed consent and full participation, 

oflndigenous Peoples· traditional ecological knowledge; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any Conference Of the Parties (COP) decision at 

Paris should acknowledge the obligation to guarantee full and effective participation of Indigenous 

Peoples in all processes, programs and actions at all levels, including inter alia access to funding 

mechanisms, financing, capacity building, monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) and 

guaranteed and enforceable safeguards and all other evolving climate change-related mechanisms; 

and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any funds created through the United Nations for 

Indigenous People's for mitigation and adaptation to climate change be available on an equal basis 

for Indigenous Peoples from all regions, including North America; and 

Page 2 of3 
468 

NCAI2015 Annual Resolution SD-15-007 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions 

(INDCs) to be submitted prior to Paris as each Party's commitment to address climate change 

should include, along with commitments to reduce emissions, commitments on adaptation, finance, 

technology transfer, and capacity building as well as indicators on the extent to which Indigenous 

Peoples' rights and safeguards are respected, and non-carbon benefits, including cultural, spiritual 

and subsistence values are ensured; and 

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be the policy ofNCAI until it is 

withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution. 

CERTIFICATION 

The foregoing resolution was adopted by the General Assembly at the 2015 Annual Session of the 

National Congress of American Indians, held at the Town and Country Resort, San Diego, CA, 

October 18-23,2015, with a quorum present. 

-~-:>~ lf~oosby, ~~ President 

ATTEST: 

Page 3 of3 
469 

EXECUTIVE CoMMITTEE 

PRESIDENT 

BrtanCiadooeby 

Swmom1shTnbe 

FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT 

RandyNoka 

NarragansettTrl!le 

RECORDING SECRETARY 

~ron Payment 

Sault ste Mane Tri~ ofCflippewa 

lndiansofMrch!fJan 

TREASURER 

W.RonAIJen 

JamestOIV!1S:K1aHamTribe 

REGIONAL V!cE· 

PRESIDENTS 

AlASKA 

Jerrylsuc 

Natrv<;!Vil/af}<;lofTanacross 

EASTERN OKLAHOMA 

Joe Byrd 

Chero!<eeNallon 

GREAT PLAINS 

Leander McDonald 

SpmtLa~Mlllon 

MIDWEST 

Roger Rader 

PokagD!l Band of PolaW<!tomJ 

NORTHEAST 

Lance Gumbs 

ShmnecocklndianNation 

NoRTHWEsT 

Fa_, Sharp 

Quinau/1/rrdranNai!On 

PACIFIC 

Jack Potter, Jr. 

ReddingRancheria 

RocKY MouNTAIN 

DarrinOidCoyote 

Crow Nation 

SoUTHEAsT 

larry To.....,S&nd 

LumbeeTnbe 

SOUTHERN PLAINS 

LlanaOnoan 

PralffiJBardofPolaW<ltomiNallon 

SOUTHWEST 

Joe Garcia 

O~~y Owmgeh Pueblo 

WESTERN 

Bruce Ignacio 

Ulelnd!iJnTnbe 

EXECliTIVE DIRECTOR 

JaequelinePata 

""'' 

NCAI HEADQUARTERS 

1516 P Street, NW 

Washinglon, DC 20005 

202.466.7767 

202.466.7797 fax 

www nca1 org 

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS 

The National Congress of American Indians 

Resolution #SD-15-024 

TITLE: Support for the Tribal Climate Change Principles: Responding to Federal 

Policies and Actions to Address Climate Change document and its Swift 

Implementation by the Federal Government 

WHEREAS, we, the members of the National Congress of American Indians 

of the United States, invoking the divine blessing of the Creator upon our efforts and 

purposes, in order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the inherent sovereign 

rights of our Indian nations, rights secured under Indian treaties and agreements with 

the United States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are entitled under the 

laws and Constitution of the United States, to enlighten the public toward a better 

understanding of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and otherwise 

promote the health, safety and welfare of the Indian people, do hereby establish and 

submit the following resolution; and 

WHEREAS, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was 

established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national organization of American 

Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments; and 

WHEREAS, Indigenous Peoples in the United States, including 567 federallyrecognized tribes, are facing immediate and significant impacts from climate change 

and a growing body of literature illustrates the unique issues facing Indigenous 

Peoples from climate change, including: the recently developed Primer on Climate 

Change and Indigenous Peoples; Guidelines ji1r Considering Traditional Knowledges 

(TKo) in Climate Change Initiatives; and the special issue of the peer-reviewed journal 

Climatic Change, "Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples in the United Stales: 

Impacts, Etperiences and Actions;" and 

WHEREAS, the federal government is beginning to acknowledge the 

disproportionate threats of climate change to Indigenous Peoples through 

administrative and congressional reports such as the 3rd National Climate Assessment 

and the 2014 President's State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate 

Preparedness and Resilience (Task Force); and 

WHEREAS, federal action must be taken to support the efforts of Indigenous 

Peoples to adapt to climate change impacts and to reduce their carbon footprints 

through a range of mitigation approaches, including renewable energy development 

and energy efficiency, and provide Indigenous Peoples access to the financial and 

technical resources that are required to assess the impacts of climate change on their 

cultures, air, land and water, economies, community health, and ways oflife; and 

WHEREAS, adequate response to the threat of climate change requires action 

by tribal, federal, state, and local governments; and 
470 

NCAI 2015 Annual Resolution SD-15-024 

WHEREAS, the federal government's treaty and trust responsibilities to protect Indian 

lands includes the duty to protect lands from the impacts of climate change, which requires that 

sufficient federal resources be equitably allocated to address climate change so Indigenous Peoples 

can engage effectively in adaptation and mitigation strategies that will help ensure the integrity of 

their cultures, homelands, infrastructures, and services; as well as enforce tribal treaty and reserved 

rights to both on- and off-reservation resources; and 

WHEREAS, the Task Force led an effort to reach out to Indigenous leaders across the 

country to solicit their recommendations on how the federal government can better support their 

nations and communities in preparing for the impacts of climate change and proposed further 

federal and state consultation and cooperation with Indigenous Peoples on all aspects of federal 

climate preparedness and resilience efforts; and 

WHEREAS, the Task Force recommendations focus on inclusion and participation of 

Indigenous Peoples in federal climate change programs, including access to data, programs and 

federal funds; education; and long-term planning for natural resources and ecosystem health; water 

safety and security; housing infrastructure; and food and energy security; and 

WHEREAS, many individual tribes, regional and national tribal organizations, and partner 

non-Native organizations recognized the need to develop a document identifying tribal specific 

principles and, to varying degrees, engaged in drafting, reviewing, and providing input to develop 

the "Tribal Climate Change Principles: Responding to Federal Policies and Actions to Address 

Climate Change," which sets forth eight principles to guide the federal government in the 

development and implementation of administrative and legislative actions related to Indigenous 

Peoples and climate change. 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Congress of American 

Indians (NCAI) supports the following eight principles of the Tribal Climate Change Principles: 

Responding to Federal Policies and Actions to Address Climate Change as a guiding policy for 

U.S. federal agencies and that all federal agencies actively engage NCAI and Indigenous Peoples in 

the United States in plans to implement these principles: 

Strengthen Tribal Sovereignty in the Climate Change Era 

I. Federally-recognized Tribes and other Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous commumtles 

must be partners with full and effective participation in assessing and addressing the 

problems of climate change at the local, regional, national, and international levels and must 

be accorded at least the status and rights recognized in the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of 

Indigenous Peoples and other international standards relevant to Indigenous Peoples. 

2. Tribes must have fair and equitable representation on all federal climate committees, 

working groups, and initiatives in which states, local governments, and other stakeholders 

are represented. 

3. The federal government should establish a high-level interagency Tribal government task 

force to examine and propose solutions to close gaps across the federal agencies' 

relationships and programs with Tribes, and to develop, recommend, and implement Tribalspecific solutions that enable the agencies to support and foster Tribal climate-resilient 

planning and investment. 

Page 2 of3 
471 

NCAI 2015 Annual Resolution SD-15-024 

Support Tribes Facing Immediate Threats from Climate Change 

4. Indigenous Peoples must have direct, open access to funding, capacity-building, and other 

technical assistance, with their free, prior and informed consent, to address the immediate 

and long-term threats from climate change. 

Ensure Tribal Access to Climate Change Resources 

5. Tribes must have fair and equitable access to federal climate change programs. 

6. Tribes must be made eligible for existing and future federal natural resource funding 

programs for which states are eligible, but from which Tribes are currently, or might be, 

excluded. 

7. A fair and equitable set-aside of direct monies or allowances must be made available for 

distribution to Tribes through legislation, administrative actions, and existing and future 

federal natural resource funding programs. 

Traditional Knowledges and Climate Change 

8. Indigenous traditional know ledges, with the free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous 

Peoples, must be acknowledged, respected, and promoted in federal policies and programs 

related to climate change; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI urges the United States government agencies, 

taskforces, and their partner organizations to comply with and implement the November 5, 2009, 

Executive Memo, Executive Order 13175, and Secretarial Order 3289, and partner with American 

Indians as sovereign nations as co-decision makers all policy, regulations and laws related to 

climate change on or off each nation's respected reservations, ceded lands and usual and 

accustomed areas; and 

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be the policy ofNCAI until it is 

withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution. 

CERTIFICATION 

The foregoing resolution was adopted by the General Assembly at the 2015 Annual Session of the 

National Congress of American Indians, held at the Town and Country Resort, San Diego, CA, 

October 18-23,2015, with a quorum present. 

ATTEST: 

Page 3 of3 
472 

EXECUTlVE COMMITTEE 

PRES1DFXT 

JefTersonK~ 

FIRST VlCE"PRESIDf:'lT 

JwmaMajciDixon 

Pauma Bam! <!{A fl.\ <I<m In.i1am 

TRE/ISliRFR 

REGIONAL VICE· 

PRF.S!Dt.:NTS 

AI.ASK"-

AlaakNmJv.:('omnmnrly 

EAS'!ERN O!.:LAHO).fA 

S.he(rilll:'nden 

Cherokee Narron 

GREATPu,n.;s 

Rllber!Shepherd 

S/;,cumWahpcton 

MIDWEST 

MatthewWI'.IliW 

Pokngon B1.1ml ol f'ola..alrJTiu 

l\'ORTHWEST 

Fawn Sharp 

QumiiUIIllliit<mNarwn 

PAt!FIC 

DonAmold 

.'i<·<>usVa/leyfla!adojPOWJ(.I/tufian> 

ROCKY MOLNTAlN 

lvanPo5<ey 

Shmhon~ Tnhe 

SOUTHEAST 

LarryTowrucnd 

ldimbe~'Jn'>l: 

SOUTHERN PLAINS 

Geary;c'l'kunnan 

S<!t•4r!dFm:NaM11 

WESTERN 

:<!NI.rlloni•,Jr 

lt~O'aihamNmwn 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

Ja(q~lineJobnsonPatll 

T!lf/R/1 

~CAl HEADQUARTERS 

l5l6PStree1,l\'.W 

Washington, DC' 20005 

202.466.7767 

202.466.7797ta>;; 

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS 

The National Congress of American Indians 

Resolution #REN-13-020 

TITLE: Adopting Guidance Principles to Address the Impacts of Climate 

Change 

WHEREAS, we, the members of the National Congress of American Indians 

of the United States, invoking the divine blessing of the Creator upon our efforts and 

purposes, in order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the inherent sovereign 

rights of our Indian nations, rights secured under Indian treaties and agreements with 

the United States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are entitled under the 

laws and Constitution of the United States, to enlighten the public toward a better 

understanding of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and otherwise 

promote the health, safety and welfare of the Indian people, do hereby establish and 

submit the following resolution; and 

WHEREAS, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was 

established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national organization of American 

Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments; and 

WHEREAS, American Indian and Alaska Natives are leaders in the nation on 

the protection of ecosystems and the environment since time immemorial and have a 

sacred responsibility to protect our resources and ways of life for generations to 

come; and 

WHEREAS, American Indian and Alaska Natives depend upon the health of 

their ecosystems and natural resources for social, economic, and cultural vitality; and 

WHEREAS, American Indians and Alaska Natives are place-based people and 

recognize that climate change is one of the most critical issues we face since it is 

threatening and can destroy in the future, indigenous ways of life that has been 

sustainable for thousands of years. 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that NCAI commits to 

collaborating with A TN! to develop an action plan which lays guiding principles and 

action steps a to address the impacts of climate change upon tribal governments, 

cultures, and lifeways; that will protect and advancing our treaty, inherent and 

indigenous rights, triballifeways and ecological knowledge; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the action plan, NCAI shall 

collaborate with A TN! to evaluate effectiveness of Executive Order 13175, and 

Secretarial Order 3289, and the United Nation Declaration of Indigenous Peoples 

(UN DRIP), in protecting and advancing the principles in the action plan; and 
473 

NCAI 2013 Midyear Resolution REN-13-0xx 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI collaborates with ATNI and calls upon the 

federal government to provides tribes equitable opportunities and funding to participate 

meaningfully in the development and implementation of federal climate change policies and 

programs; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI collaborates with A TN! and calls upon 

Congress and relevant federal agencies to explore and advocate for tribal eligibility for federal 

energy and natural resource management programs that provide funding to states and local 

governments but exclude tribal governments and intertribal consortia by law, regulation, or 

practice; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI collaborates with A TNI and commits to create 

a Tribal Climate Change Task Force, composed of tribal governments, intertribal organizations, and 

non-tribal partners to develop and implement the plan of action; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be the policy of NCAI until it is 

withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution, 

CERTIFICATION 

The foregoing resolution was adopted by the General Assembly at the 2013 Midyear Session of the 

National Congress of American Indians, held at the Atlantis Casino from June 24 - 27, 2013 in 

Reno, Nevada with a quorum present. 

ATTEST: :_!~, 

R~ 
474 

LATINOS OPPOSE SCOTT PRUITT FOR EPA ADMINISTRATOR 

January 17, 2017 

Dear Senator: 

~\s Latino leaders, members and representatives of the undersigned organizations committed to efforts that support 

our communities' health, advancement, safety and well-being, and on behalf of the concerned communities we 

represent, we strongly urge you to oppose the president-elect's nominee to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott PnUtt. 

Mr. Pruitt has made a career of suing the Environmental Protection Agency, and has used his office to attack lifesaving 

public health protections time and time again. His record exhibits a reckless disregard for public health and a deeply 

troubling contempt for the very mission of the agency he has been nominated to lead. Mr. Pruitt denies the science of 

climate change, suing to block national standards to fight this crisis; he has fought against clean air protections, 

opposing the Mercury and Air Taxies standard which would prevent premature deaths and asthma attacks; he has sued 

the EPA to overturn clean water safeguards for more than half of the nation's waterways, including streams that feed 

into the drinking water supplies of hundreds of millions of Americans. Scott Pruitt is simply unfit to lead the EPA and, 

if confirmed, would pose a danger to our cotnnmnities. 

Latinos overwhelmingly support actions to fight climate change. \Ve recognize the importance of protecting the 

environment 97 percent of Latinos agree we have a moral obligation to take care of our environment. In December, 

the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, a coalition of 40 of the leading Latino organizations nationwide, voiced 

their opposition to Mr. Pruitt's nomination, stating that they were "particularly troubled by this choice," and pointing 

to the prevalence of asthma and other respiratory diseases among Latinos living near polluting power plants, truck 

routes, and factories; as well as the large number Latinos who are employed in outdoor occupations, including 

agriculture, where they arc exposed to health hazards, bad air quality, and the impacts of extreme weather. 

Americans did not vote for more air pollution, taxies, or dirty water, nor did they vote to undo critical protections that 

safeguard our children and con:ununities. \X-re did not vote for more climate change or dirty energy. Putting the EPA in 

Mr. Pruitt's hands does just that he will threaten our children's health, turn back the clock on landmark efforts to clean 

up our air, water and climate, and imperil the United States' position as a global clean energy leader. 

\Xr'e call on you to publicly declare your commitment to stand up for our right to breathe clean air, drink clean water, 

and be protected from pollution. \X:'e urge you to vote against all legislative proposals that would in any way repeal, 

weaken or undermine these rights, laws and safeguards. Our community· is counting on you to protect us by voting to 

reject Scott Pruitt's nomination for Administrator of the U.S. EPA. 

Sincerely, 

Mildred Real 

Founder and CEO 

America Verde 

Irene Vilar 

Founder and CEO 

Americas for Conservation + the Arts 

Arturo Carmona 

Arturo for Congress Campaign 

Ronald Blackburn Moreno 

President and CEO 

ASPIRA Association 

M:arce GraudiQS 

Founder I Director 

Azul 

Vanessa Smith 

Publisher 

Chica Magazine 

Lisa Hoyos 

Director 

Climate Parents 

Omar Gomez 

Director of Programs and Public Policy 

Council of Mexican Federations (COFE!vl) 
475 

Soledad I Iaren 

Producer 

Epoca Verde, Green Living, Green Times 

Virginia Ruiz 

Director of Occupational and Environmental I lealth 

Farmworker Justice 

l'vlark l'viagana 

President & CEO 

GreenLatinos 

Laura Esquivel 

Director of National Advocacy 

Hispanic Fede.ration 

CristObal Alex 

Presidenr 

Latino Victory Project 

Luis Torres 

Director of Policy and Legislation 

J.eague ofUruted Latin American Citizens 

Brent \\/ilkes 

National Execucive Director 

League of United Latin American Citizens 

AmyL. Hinojosa 

President and CEO 

fvlANA, A National Latina Organization 

Ben Monterroso 

Executive Director 

Mi Familia Vota 

Samuel Molina 

Cahlornia State Director 

Mi Familia Vota 

Eduardo Satnz 

Arizona Deputy Drrector 

fvfi f.aiD.ilJ.a Vota Arizona 

Carla Casted a 

Colorado State Drrector 

tvfi .familia Vota Colorado 

Esteban Garces 

Florida State Daector 

Mi Familia Vota Florida 

I3cn rvionterroso 

Executive Director 

Mi Familia Vota 

Carlos Duarte 

'I 'exas Stare Director 

Mi Familia Vota Texas 

Elena Rios, MD, MSPH, FACP 

President & CEO 

National Hispanic Medical _;_\ssocianon 

Sergio Rimola, 1ill 

National Hispanic Medical Association 

Olga Trujillo 

Director of Public Policy 

~ational Latin@ Network of Casa de Esperanza 

Erika Castro 

Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada 

Hilda Nucete 

ProtCgete Program Director 

Protegete: Nuestro Aire, Nuestra Salud 

Carlos Zcgarra 

Director 

Sachamama 

Alejandra Nunez 

Sierra Club 

Dr Mary A Haberl 

Chvner 

SolarFour ILC 

TonyDeFalc 

Deputy Director 

Verde 

i\ na I .ucia Garcia 

Concerned Citizen 

Paty Romero Lankao, PhD 

"CNCR 

Gerald Torres 

Professor I Concerned Cicizen 

Fernando Cazares 

e rban Planner / Concerned Ci~en 

Graciela Cabello 

Concerned C:rt1Zen 

Voto Latino 

The Staff and Board Members of 

Voces Verdes 
476 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Then I would like to turn to a question that has puzzled me over 

time. And it is in the context of how one evaluates, how one views 

the world. I heard one of my colleagues once present it this way. 

If you go to a doctor and they say you have cancer, you decide you 

had better get a second opinion. You go to a hundred doctors, and 

97 of them say you have cancer and you had better act, most people feel like, 97 doctors said I should act, 3 said I should go take 

some health care supplement. Maybe I had better have the operation. 

And that is really the place where we are in climate science now, 

where the overwhelming weight of the scientific community weighs 

in and says, yes, it is very logical, you can do it in the laboratory, 

as Senator Whitehouse noted, that carbon dioxide traps heat. You 

can do it in a laboratory that methane traps heat. You can track 

the change in the environment of the concentration of those gases. 

You can see the impacts on the ground now. 

In my home State you have an impact on the oysters, because 

the Pacific Ocean is 30 percent more acidic than it was before we 

started burning coal. That is a scary thing, when shellfish have 

trouble forming shells. It has an economic impact. Our pine beetles 

are thriving because the winter is not cold enough to kill them, and 

so it is having a huge impact on our forests. That is an economic 

impact on rural America. 

The southern part of my State has had three worst ever droughts 

in the last 15 years. It is a huge impact on agricultural communities. The streams in Oregon coming from the snow packs have 

been declining in size and raising in temperature, very bad for 

trout, very bad for salmon. That is an impact on our fishing community. 

So the global warming that is taking place and being driven by 

the burning of fossil fuels is having a huge economic impact on the 

citizens of my State, my rural citizens, my citizens who depend on 

timber, who depend on fishing, who depend on farming. Should the 

citizens seek to address this problem? Because we are just on the 

front end of this happening. 

Ten years ago we were talking about models that led to the conversation Senator Inhofe had about ClimateGate, about assumptions and models. We don’t need models now. We have facts on the 

ground. The moose are dying because the ticks are not being killed 

by the winter being cold enough. The fish are migrating on the Atlantic coast and Maine is losing its lobsters to Canada. 

These facts on the ground are extraordinarily real. They have a 

huge economic impact. And shouldn’t we take a very serious approach to the urgency of this problem, as we see it descending upon 

us? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, I think the EPA, and if confirmed as Administrator, there is currently an obligation to deal with the issue. 

The Massachusetts v. EPA case says that CO2 is a pollutant under 

the Clean Air Act. And as such that is what generated the 2009 

endangerment finding. So I think there is a legal obligation presently for the EPA Administrator to respond to the CO2 issue 

through proper regulations. 
477 

Senator MERKLEY. I believe you are acknowledging in that, 

which I am glad to hear, that it is a serious problem and that the 

EPA, that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and we have a legal obligation to take it on. 

Mr. PRUITT. I think Massachusetts v. EPA says that. Counterbalance, by the UARG decision, that came out a few years later, 

that you can’t transform a statute, as the EPA sought to do with 

the PSD program. So I think the court has spoken very emphatically about this issue. And the EPA has a legal obligation to respond. 

Senator MERKLEY. And as you kind of rank the urgency with 

which you bring to this, do you see it as something that you wake 

up every day being, like, the next generation will weigh whether 

or not we acted promptly? Or is it more, I have a legal obligation 

because of this court decision, so I will have to have some folks pay 

some attention to it? 

Mr. PRUITT. I think the importance, Senator, it is very difficult 

to prioritize. Senator Gillibrand is not here, but when she talks to 

me about PFOA and the threat that she is facing in New York, is 

that any less important than the CO2 issue? It is not. So the EPA 

deals with very weighty issues, as you know, water and air quality. 

It is a matter of prioritizing the resources to achieve better outcomes in each. And I think it is very important to do so as Administrator. 

Senator MERKLEY. I do feel like perhaps you don’t understand 

the gravity of the situation, from your response. Because there are 

feedback mechanisms that are starting to occur with the open 

bluewater in the Arctic, feedback from methane bubbling up from 

the permafrost, bubbling up from the peat bogs, bubbling up from 

what was previously frozen methane on the bottom of the ocean 

that has incredibly accelerating impact on global warming. 

Our rate of carbon dioxide pollution is not decreasing globally. It 

has doubled in rate from one part per million per year to two parts 

per million per year. So we are on an accelerating curve as a 

human civilization. And if human civilization doesn’t get it together 

very quickly, we are in very deep trouble. I would hope at some 

point perhaps the urgency of the situation would be something you 

will grab hold of. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Attorney General Pruitt, last year at an oversight hearing, we 

heard reports of the EPA regional offices who are sending companies information collection requests, or ICRs, pursuant to section 

114 of the Clean Air Act, regarding their operations, with no explanation as to the reason for the ICRs. These ICRs, which companies 

are legally obligated to respond to, can cost the companies millions 

of dollars to collect the information to respond to the request. They 

often hear no follow up from the EPA regarding whether their response was adequate or what the information would be used for. 

Last year, I requested from the EPA a record of the ICRs that 

had been sent to U.S. companies throughout the various regions. 
478 

I was told by the EPA staff that there was no way to get this information, because they didn’t have it. 

Second, in 2015 I wrote a letter to the EPA Administrator Gina 

McCarthy requesting the economic information that forms the basis 

of the Clean Power Plan and the ozone NOx standards. These are 

the major regulations that were being quickly imposed on American taxpayers. The response which I received, it took 2 and a half 

months to get the response, but I understand that I am one of the 

few recipients of an actual letter back from the EPA, and I would 

ask that it be included as part of the record of the meeting today, 

Mr. Chairman. The letter was basically nothing short of referring 

me to an Internet link that directed me to a Web page, the same 

Web page which generated the questions in the first place. Essentially, they just simply suggested that I Google it. Not hardly a response that you would expect back from a Federal agency, at least 

one that was trying to be responsive with regard to major proposed 

rules. 

Working as a United States Senator I have found it nearly impossible to easily access the information that I am looking for. I 

can’t imagine the difficulty of a small business, a farmer or a 

rancher, when they are seeking to get information from the Environmental Protection Agency. As the EPA Administrator, the role 

which you are seeking, do you believe that this is an adequate way 

to communicate what the public and elected officials, and where 

are your views on making agency communication and recordkeeping more transparent and accessible? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, this is actually a common theme. As I met 

with many of you on this Committee, both Democrats and Republicans, it was expressed to me that concern about the lack of response by the EPA at all, in response to inquiries, let alone the 

time of response. So I believe it is very important, as I indicated 

in my opening statement, to listen not only to the voices of the 

American people, but listen to Members of Congress, listen to members of this body with respect to the issues that are of concern to 

them in their respective States. That is something I take very seriously and would seek to respond very expeditiously to you and to 

others in this body with responses. 

Senator ROUNDS. The Ranking Member had asked, and was following up with questions in terms of your role as the Attorney 

General with regard to fracking issues in Oklahoma, but also with 

regard to clean air attainment levels and so forth. It seemed to me 

that what you were trying to portray at the time, and I would like 

you to expand on this, because I think this is important, is that you 

have a different role as an Attorney General than you would be if 

you were responsible as the agency within the State who had the 

direct statutory authority to respond to those issues. It seems to 

me that that is one of the roles that the EPA Administrator has 

which would be different than that of Attorney General, which is 

the execution of the laws that we have passed. 

Could you expand a little bit? Because I think this is really important in terms of the way you perceive your duties with regard 

to executing the laws that this Congress has passed. 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, Senator, and I appreciate the question. The role 

of Administrator is to perform an executive role, an executive pol-
479 

icymaking role and carrying out the functions and the statutes that 

Congress has passed. That is much different than my current role 

as Attorney General. As I tried to indicate to Senator Carper, in 

respect to enforcement actions in the State of Oklahoma, that is 

vested specifically in the Department of Environmental Quality. 

They are the ones that bring enforcement actions against companies who do not comply with air permits, et cetera. We provide general counsel to them in that process, but it is not our responsibility. 

But more, it is not our jurisdiction. And that is important to me, 

because it goes back to rule of law; it goes back to process. 

I think oftentimes what we see in this country is that folks kind 

of disregard the authority or jurisdiction that has been given to 

them by the statute of the Constitution, and they act anyway. That 

is what creates, I think, a lack of confidence in the American people. So I try to respect those boundaries. I try to respect my role 

as Attorney General, stay in my lane, if you will, and provide the 

counsel and perform the job that we are supposed to perform to 

that agency, but then allow that agency to enforce as required by 

law. 

Senator ROUNDS. And then very quickly, that also means that 

with regard to determining the science behind the laws that we 

create, as the Administrator, you are not going to make the determination yourself. You expect that sound science and the scientists 

with that background would be making the recommendations that 

you would then face a decision on? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yes, Senator, objective and transparent in that process. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Rounds. 

Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Mr. Chairman, if you would gracefully hold the 

clock for a second, because I want to respond very succinctly to 

something that you and Senator Boozman said. First of all, to you, 

sir, this is my first time going through nomination hearings. You 

have been very generous with the way you have been conducting 

these hearings. I think it is important that we note that, and I appreciate the number of rounds that you are doing. 

And then to Senator Boozman, I really do appreciate him adding 

to the line of inquiry I am having, he referred to me as a friend, 

which means a lot to me. People around here, your colleagues, 

know that you have a deep respect for the kind of kindness and 

just decency that you represent, a level to which I aspire but have 

not attained. Thank you for that. Thank you for indulging me. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator BOOKER. And again, with respect to my colleague, who 

is a really good man, if this was between Delaware and New Jersey, I am the up-State, I would be very happy with the agreement 

that it seems that you, you are the down-State. So that is what I 

don’t understand. You said earlier in your testimony in regard to 

this matter that you have a copy of the 2003 agreement. Do you 

have that? 

Mr. PRUITT. I have the second agreement, Senator. 
480 

Senator BOOKER. OK, let’s just look at the 2000 agreement. I 

know you claimed in your testimony earlier that the 2003 agreement had expiration on it. 

Mr. PRUITT. There was a 10-year period. But that needed to be 

reevaluated. This is the second statement I have here, Senator. 

Senator BOOKER. I just want to clarify that it is a contradiction. 

There is no expiration on the 2003 agreement. It had a reevaluation, a period in which it would be reevaluated. And it was reevaluated by your State with involvement of the EPA and the involvement of Arkansas, and they came up with the same .037 standard. 

And if you look at the provisions of what you do have in front of 

you, the 2013 agreement, and I have a blow-up of page 4 of that 

agreement, it states that—starting here, it states that Oklahoma, 

through the Water Resources Board, will propose a rule amendment that removes the date to achieve full compliance with a numeric phosphorus criterion set forth in Oklahoma administrative 

code. Then it lists these two codes. 

If you look at those two codes, what those two codes do, you 

know what they are, they said the sections of phosphorus concentration shall not exceed .037 by June 30th. It is removing the 

June 30th deadline in these two statutes. 

So that is what is frustrating to me, is that this is what you are 

heralding as a great agreement. But you already had in the year 

2013 agreement—it is clear that you are doing, to me, and I don’t 

know any other way of reading the facts, is that you take a binding 

rule of law and you suspend it for another 3 years, allowing more 

pollution to take place. 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, that is not—the issue here was not whether 

Oklahoma could enforce its .037 standard; it was whether Arkansas was going to adopt that standard on that side of the border. 

That had never taken place in history. That was the concern of 

Oklahomans. That was the concern of Mr. Fite at the Seneca-Illinois River. 

Senator BOOKER. So I am going to stipulate to what you said, because I am running out of time, sir. I agree with you, whether Arkansas was going to be able to live up to that standard. But you 

are the Oklahoma Attorney General. And this is what I want to 

say. As soon as you did this so-called historic agreement that set 

it back, you basically turned to the EPA with a rule, with the 

power of law of the Supreme Court and said, OK, back off my corporations. 

Why do I say that so confidently? Because I pulled a letter from 

Tyson Foods that literally 6 days after your so-called historic agreement of suspending this rule for 3 years, they are delighted. They 

write to the EPA and say, hey, you may have not only heard of the 

February 20th agreement by Oklahoma and Arkansas officials to 

jointly conduct a comprehensive study of concentrations and impacts in the Illinois rivershed. They are excited. They literally say, 

compliance, however, with the now .037 has been suspend. So lay 

off us, EPA, under this agreement, until the study process is completed. In conclusion, the bi-State agreement has suspended implementation date of .037 during the term of the agreement. 

Industry is really happy about this, and believes—and of course 

this letter, you are saying Tyson is wrong; they believe that what 
481 

you did is give them, the EPA, with the power of the Supreme 

Court and 20 years of work that predecessors of yours had done, 

the power to suspend that power over them to comply with the law. 

So that is really what I am struggling with. On one hand you say 

that you filed lawsuits against 14 people, against the EPA. It is 

this idea of federalism, of Oklahoma sovereignty, Oklahoma States’ 

rights, you are fiercely fighting for Oklahoma. And on the side of 

the polluters. You say the EPA is attempting to do things. 

But then on the other hand, in this case that you are talking 

about, you switch suddenly to say, well, Oklahoma’s water quality 

standard for phosphorus, that has been worked on for 25 years, 

armed with an EPA approval, armed with a Supreme Court decision, on point saying that up-river States are bound, industries believe that they are bound, but suddenly you are no longer fighting 

for Oklahoma. You are fighting to protect industry, on the side of 

industry again. 

Mr. PRUITT. I can assure you, Senator, that industry didn’t think 

they were bound. 

Senator BOOKER. Why did Tyson write the letter, sir? 

Mr. PRUITT. I don’t know why they sent that. Because as Senator 

Boozman indicated earlier, the phosphorus level at .037 was unenforceable on the Arkansas side of the border. That was the concern. 

Until this agreement that we have here was negotiated and signed 

by Arkansas, that had never occurred in the history of Oklahoma. 

Senator BOOKER. But sir, Arkansas was party to the 2012 scientific investigation. They are bound by the Supreme Court case 

which I pointed out to you already, and I can read you the binding 

paragraphs, [unclear] by the EPA and obviously understood by industry that they were bound by that standard. Your agreement 

didn’t stop it. It extended the period in which people could pollute. 

I don’t understand how that could be historic. 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, I think as you look at what was achieved 

between Arkansas and Oklahoma, you had the Arkansas Attorney 

General, Ed Fite, who had been involved in these issues, as indicated earlier, since 1983, trying to enforce and obtain water quality 

that improved the Seneca-Illinois River; he cited the historic results in this matter. 

So I am unaware of the letter that you are referring to, but I can 

assure that industry was not, not at all excited about .037 being 

enforced on the Arkansas side of the border. 

Senator BOOKER. And I will conclude just by saying, sir, it is 

clear that industry was excited about the 3-year delay that you 

bought them to continue to pollute. It is written there in a letter. 

It seems to me the theme in your work is not federalism and 

States’ rights, but deregulation in siding with polluters against the 

environment and public health standards. It is unfortunate to me 

that , unless you can show me something different in the way that 

this actually helped to clean up the river quicker, but I just don’t 

see that at all in the evidence and the facts that I have before me. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Booker. 

Our next questioner is actually Senator Boozman. Since we have 

Oklahoma and Arkansas both here, I don’t know if you have a 

question, Senator Boozman, or if you just want to make a comment 
482 

about this agreement, since both of the States are here. You represent the congressional district directly adjacent. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I want to make a quick comment, and then 

after that, I think all of my questions have been answered. I would 

yield back if we can have agreement. 

I think the thing, Senator Booker, to understand is that first of 

all, the water was not being polluted at that point. Arkansas had 

made tremendous improvement over the years, and had just—our 

discharge in Springdale, Fayetteville, Rogers, Bentonville, the 

major communities there that have grown tremendously during 

that timeframe, their discharges were down to very admirable levels. So all of that was being done. 

The question was, was .037 fair versus .04 or .05. As I mentioned 

earlier our most pristine river in Arkansas was not at .037. So we 

didn’t feel like we could do that. So Oklahoma was happy with all 

this stuff. Arkansas is not. And because of that, in 2013, as the 

agreement ran out, they were prepared to go back to court again. 

This thing had been litigated since the Supreme Court finding back 

in the 1990s all along the line. 

To be honest, I am not happy with the .037. I think it is too 

stringent. I would challenge to find a river in New Jersey that 

meets that standard, and you can’t do it. It is a very, very stringent 

standard. 

So it wasn’t continuing to pollute and things like that. Tremendous progress made on the Arkansas side. Everyone agrees with 

that. It was, where do you draw the limit. 

So often with the EPA, and this is so important, we have had on 

the Committee, we have had the gentleman that represents the 

water district for this huge area. They spent a billion dollars doing 

a great job of cleaning things up, raising everybody’s rates. EPA 

has come back and wants them to spend another billion dollars for 

a tiny fraction that everybody agrees would not have any impact 

on the water quality in the river. These are the kinds of things that 

you get into. 

So again, I am really not happy at all about the .037. I think 

that Tyson and the industry were happy in the sense that you 

would have a situation where you would have some finality, you 

would have some resolution so that everybody could go forward. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Ernst, any final comments or 

thoughts or questions? 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have any further questions. Whatever additional questions I have, I will submit 

for the record. 

But I do have some closing comments. I do want to push back 

a little bit on the Ranking Member’s comments earlier. I had gone 

through a series of examples of overreach by the Government with 

the expanded definition of Waters of the U.S. And the Ranking 

Member had stated that he had a letter that he had received from 

Administrator Gina McCarthy. And I have no doubt that she was 

answering those questions honestly, because she wasn’t the one 

making the statements. The statements that I presented came from 

the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Justice. 

Now, I know this to be true: these are not as implied from some 

obscure Web site off of the Internet done by some blogger in a base-
483 

ment somewhere. The comments actually came from this Committee, case studies from this Committee, September 2016. These 

are examples of case studies from all across the United States. I 

will cite just one that I opened up to. 

A landowner in California received an investigation letter from 

the Corps informing him that disking performed by a tenant farmer on his land may have resulted in an unauthorized discharged 

into WOTUS and that regulators had opened a case against the 

landowner. They are being implemented, case by case. This letter 

came as a surprise to the landowner, who had been disking this 

particular site periodically over the last 15 years to sustain grazing 

conditions for his cattle, a practice he believed was normal, until 

he received this notice. 

The court told the landowner’s consultant that all disking for any 

purpose and at any depth with any potential WOTUS is a discharge into WOTUS, and in the absence of a permit represents an 

unauthorized discharge in violation of the Clean Water Act. This 

is an actual letter from the Corps that was submitted to this Committee, the EPW Committee, last year. 

So this is not made up. This is a very real impact to all Americans. So I appreciate your stance, Attorney General Pruitt, that if 

you are confirmed, you will work with those that wish to continue 

farming and normal practices. But this is not made up, folks. We 

just need everyone to understand that the Corps, the DOJ, and the 

EPA have gone beyond what we consider to be reasonable application of the law. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, if I could just respond very 

briefly. The letter that I sent on January 11th was not just to the 

EPA. It was to the head of the EPA and also the Assistant Secretary at the Army, Department of the Army, who is in charge of 

the Army Corps of Engineers. So it was really to both, both EPA 

and the Army Corps of Engineers. I gave them a half-dozen or 

more questions and said, these assertions that we are hearing, 

what is the truth? And they responded jointly. 

Senator ERNST. And if I can respond to that, I apologize, because 

I was going to use Senator Rounds’ letter as a prop. I had not seen 

a letter from the EPA. I had written Administrator Gina McCarthy 

nearly 2 years ago on some issues that I was wanting addressed 

for Iowa. And I invited her to come to Iowa and visit. She never, 

ever responded to me or my staff. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pruitt, you have criticized the Obama administration on a 

number of occasions for allegedly ‘‘colluding with environmental 

groups to engage in sue and settle tactics.’’ You just reiterated your 

concern to Senator Inhofe. 

But in December many of your co-plaintiff attorneys general, who 

are suing the EPA over the Clean Power Plan, sent a letter to 

President-Elect Trump, urging him to settle their lawsuits related 

to the Clean Power Plan. That sure sounds like an invitation to engage in sue and settle to me. 
484 

To avoid the appearance of entering into sweetheart settlements 

on the Clean Power Plan cases will you commit to recusing yourself 

form all ongoing litigation that you are involved in? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, I would say to you that the sue and settle 

practice, whether by this Administration or future administrations, 

is a practice that should not be followed. I believe that regulation 

through litigation is wrong. I believe that the rulemaking process 

that Congress has established should be respected by agencies, not 

only the EPA but across the board. 

I would mention one case to you. 

Senator MARKEY. It looks a lot like that is what the attorneys 

general are doing, who are suing. And you are a co-plaintiff in this 

case on the Clean Power Plan. Will you recuse yourself from any 

role in the settling of these cases, in the negotiation on a settling 

of these cases? 

Mr. PRUITT. The sue and settle practice should not be used by 

any administration to regulate. We have experienced in Oklahoma 

a case involving the Fish and Wildlife and Endangered Species Act 

in the relisting of the lesser prairie-chicken that impacted our 

State. So sue and settle is wrong. 

Senator MARKEY. Are you giving me a yes, that you will not settle with these attorneys general? 

Mr. PRUITT. I will not engage in a sue and settle practice, if confirmed as EPA Administrator, at any time. 

Senator MARKEY. Will you negotiate with them to reach a settlement, such as has been recommended by the attorneys general who 

are the plaintiffs in this case against the Clean Power Plan? 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, it is a belief of mine that the use of sue and 

settle is a practice that should not be done by any agency of the 

U.S. Government. 

Senator MARKEY. Right. So will you recuse yourself from any involvement in this litigation as it is being decided? 

Mr. PRUITT. As I have indicated to you, Senator, the EPA ethics 

counsel, career staff at the EPA, has said that a particular matter, 

a specific case that those will be evaluated at the time. I will seek 

their counsel and comply with their counsel. 

Senator MARKEY. Honestly, Mr. Pruitt, there is no bigger case 

than the Clean Power Plan. It goes to the promise that the United 

States is making to the world that we are going to reduce significantly our greenhouse gases. So this just goes to you as an individual saying that since you brought the case with these other attorneys general that you will now recuse yourself. Since you are in 

fact the plaintiff and defendant in this case if you are confirmed 

as the EPA Administrator. 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, as I indicated to you earlier, and I am sorry 

to interrupt you, but as I indicated to you earlier, I will recuse if 

directed by the EPA ethics counsel, career staff at EPA ethics. You 

know these individuals. They have been there, and I will follow 

their counsel and guidance. 

Senator MARKEY. All right. I know I am not going to get you to 

recuse yourself from any of these cases, but I am just telling you, 

it is going to wind up being a huge conflict of interest if these attorneys general get to settle on their terms with the Trump adminis-
485 

tration and you are sitting there in the middle of the room as that 

occurs. 

Now, let me go to another subject, and that is this bottle of 

Trump water. Trump water, natural spring water. On the label it 

says, ‘‘pure, fresh and free from contaminants. This is water the 

way it was meant to be.’’ Trump hotel guests have the luxury of 

drinking this water if they don’t trust what comes out of the tap. 

Low income communities across our country do not have the same 

luxury. Do you agree that the EPA plays a critical role in ensuring 

that all Americans, regardless of racial, ethnic, or economic backgrounds, have a right to clean water, free from contaminants? 

Mr. PRUITT. Absolutely. In fact, Senator Booker and I talked 

about environmental justice in our meeting. 

Senator MARKEY. That is great. As the widespread lead contamination in Flint, Michigan’s water supply tragically reminds us, low 

income and minority communities often bear far greater environmental burdens. Yet you told Senator Cardin earlier today that you 

didn’t know if there is any safe level of lead. But scientific experts, 

including the CDC and World Health Organization, have concluded 

that there is no safe level of lead exposure. 

Will you commit to making environmental justice for poor and 

minority communities an immediate priority of the EPA, if you are 

confirmed as Administrator? 

Mr. PRUITT. I believe it is a very important role of the EPA Administrator. 

Senator MARKEY. Well, minority communities often don’t have 

the money—— 

Senator BARRASSO. The Senator’s time has expired in the third 

round. Thank you. 

Senator Sullivan. 

Senator SULLIVAN. General Pruitt, I just have one final question. 

We talked about some of the challenges that we have; this Committee has been working on infrastructure issues. There were a lot 

of discussions last year about Flint, Michigan, and aging infrastructure, which I think is a concern at the State and local and 

Federal levels. 

There is also a challenge in certain parts of the country on no 

infrastructure. None. No clean water and sewer. My State has over 

30 communities that don’t have any clean water and sewer. In 

terms of the diseases and the living conditions in communities like 

that, as you can imagine it can be very difficult. So in a bipartisan 

way, this Committee acted last year, established a new program for 

disadvantaged communities, small communities, to work on those 

kinds of issues for different communities, whether Alaska or other 

parts of the country, that literally live in third world conditions in 

some communities. So that would be administered by the EPA, this 

new program. I just want to get your commitment to work with us 

to fully fund that new program to work on those kinds of issues. 

Mr. PRUITT. As we talked about in our meeting, Senator, I believe sometimes when infrastructure is referenced we think roads 

and bridges, and we don’t think water infrastructure. I think all 

those are important, and I would make that a priority interfacing 

with Congress if confirmed as EPA Administrator. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Great. Thank you. 
486 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. 

I want to thank all the members for the respectful way in which 

the business was conducted today. Members may also submit follow up written questions, but it seems that everyone had plenty of 

opportunity to ask oral questions. Schedule for the close, the recording for the close of business Thursday, January 19th—Senator 

Carper. 

Senator CARPER. I thought we were going to do one more. 

Senator BARRASSO. I thought three rounds was the longest in the 

history of this. The last, the only other time there were three 

rounds was Christie Todd Whitman in 2001. Those were three 

rounds of 5 minutes each. And the reason that she as a Republican 

nominee was given three rounds is that the Chairman of the Committee was Harry Reid. So three rounds, the witness has been here 

since 10. It is now 4:30, so he has been 6 and a half hours, and 

three rounds. By any criteria that one would use, each of 5 minutes, when Gina McCarthy was nominated, and I had significant 

numbers of questions, Barbara Boxer limited me to one 5-minute 

round and one 2-minute round. We have more than doubled today 

that amount of time for questioning. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I am certainly not saying that you’ve been 

unfair with us, but until this very minute, I don’t think it has been 

clear to anyone that there was a three round limit. I believe you 

opened the hearing by saying that we would go on until people’s 

questions were answered. 

So this is a bit of a novelty. But again, please don’t take it as 

a criticism of your fairness. I think that you have been fair. This 

is just news. And I do have a bunch of questions right here that 

I’d hoped to ask as what I expected to be a final fourth round. 

Senator BARRASSO. Then I would invite you to please submit 

those follow up written questions by tomorrow close of business. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, could I be recognized? 

Senator BARRASSO. Yes, sir. Senator Carper, and then Senator 

Booker. 

Senator CARPER. I appreciate the way you’ve conducted this 

hearing today. I appreciate all the members coming and coming 

back again and again. When we were talking a week or two ago 

about the hearing, whether to have 1 day of hearings or 2 days of 

hearings, our side was interested in having 2 days of hearings. We 

were interested in having an outside panel, and it was explained 

to us that that is not really the tradition of the Committee, to have 

an outside panel. 

But you, Senator, preferred to have it in 1 day, and we’ll stay 

as long as people have questions, I think those were almost exactly 

your words. And that is hard to argue with, to stay as long as people have questions. Some of the folks have some more questions. 

I know I do. And we are not running out the clock on those questions. I would just ask that you think back on our earlier conversation, and you see your way clear to have one more round, and we’ll 

call it a day. 

Senator BARRASSO. Yes, well, I would say a couple of things. One 

is, I offered to start the Committee meeting earlier today because 
487 

there are many of us who have commitments into the evening, people from our home States who are here for the inauguration activities. We have commitments for our home States. And the idea of 

starting at 9 was rejected. And we wanted to go along, right before 

the third round, I said, now, if there is going to be ongoing, maybe 

we should take a break, give the witness an opportunity to take a 

break, you said, no, let’s plow on. 

The witness has been sitting there now for just about 3 hours. 

And depending on wishes of the Committee, my preference is to 

say, we have done more than ever done in the last 16 years or 17 

years for nominees. If people have one or two questions I would 

want to give the witness an opportunity to stretch his legs. I will 

be happy to stay. And we can come back with a 3-minute round. 

But I just think—people have obligations and commitments. And 

we thought we would be completed by now. It does seem by many 

of the end, and for people who are here now, they could go. So we 

have three members, if you want to go 2 to 3 minutes or one or 

two questions, I think we would be able to accommodate. But to 

bring back the entire Committee and go into the night—— 

Senator CARPER. I am not suggesting we bring back the entire 

Committee. Let me just suggest that if we can, we can agree here. 

Those that are here today, right this moment, if they have questions, give them 5 minutes. And then when they’re done, we are 

done. 

Senator BARRASSO. Any objection from our side? 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Though we would be able to yield back any time 

that we had, if we didn’t want to use it. 

Senator BARRASSO. Sure. 

Senator CARPER. Or you could yield to us. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. I can only say that I have chaired this Committee for quite a number of years. I have been through this once 

before, and there is always an effort by those who are perhaps not 

really satisfied, as some of the others might be, to try to make it 

continue on and on and on. 

I would prefer to go ahead. I think we have all had adequate 

time and be prepared to vote. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, we don’t have a vote scheduled for 

today on this. We don’t have an agreement on that. So it wouldn’t 

be a vote. I would say, if we—— 

Senator INHOFE. Well, if that is the case, then we can confine it 

for the record, any questions that they have. 

Senator BARRASSO. Any other suggestions? 

Senator SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I think you’ve been exceedingly fair, particularly relative to the confirmation of Gina McCarthy. And I think it is purely within your call to have additional 

questions be submitted for the record. The opportunity for the witness to answer all the questions, he’ll still have to do it before his 

confirmation. But relative to any other EPA Administrator hearing, 

you’ve been very generous, very fair, and I think that in retrospective, I think that is a very fair outcome, to still ask the questions, 

just submit the questions for the record. 
488 

Senator CARPER. Can I respond to our colleague from Alaska? I 

don’t know if you remember a year or 2 ago, there was a joint session of the House and Senate committees, environment committees. 

And the witness was Gina McCarthy. And I arrived 4 hours into 

the hearing. And after a while, I was recognized to ask a question. 

And my first question of Gina McCarthy was, you’ve been here for 

4 hours, haven’t you? She said yes. And I said, is there any question you haven’t been asked that you wish you had been asked? 

And she said yes. I said, what is it? She said, I wish I’d been asked 

if I needed a bathroom break. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. I don’t know if the witness could use a bathroom break. But if you need one for a couple minutes, we could arrange that. 

Here’s what we are asking for. Five minutes, Cory Booker, Sheldon Whitehouse, Tom Carper. We ask our questions and we are 

done. That’s it. Can you handle that? Why don’t you say yes? We’re 

wasting a lot of time here. 

Senator BARRASSO. As you said, you have a couple of questions. 

Let’s go 3 minutes each and we’ll call it good. You’re up. 

Senator BOOKER. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. I’d asked to be recognized earlier. I do want 

to—— 

Senator BARRASSO. I apologize. Yes, sir. 

Senator BOOKER. I just want to repeat, I do think what Senator 

Sullivan said, you have been very, very generous, it is true. I appreciate what seems like an accord right now of a few minutes 

now. I’d appreciate that. 

One thing you didn’t mark, which I think should be really important, is I have no sympathy for the nominee and his endurance. I 

do have for his family, behind him, who has sat through this. I just 

want to mark for the record that they are true champs. I think that 

is important to know. I thank them for their indulgence. Not the 

nominee, but them. 

Senator INHOFE. I would just say that is more evidence that he 

cares for the children of Oklahoma. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BARRASSO. I would just say, more people vote for me because of my wife than vote for me, and I would suggest for you as 

well, in the case of this nominee. 

Senator CARPER. Let me yield to Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I just want to touch on two things, and 

then we’ll wrap up. The first is that on your questionnaire you listed an e-mail address with a me.com domain as your business email. You also have an OAG.ok.gov address. Are there other e-mail 

addresses that you have, and are the other e-mail addresses that 

you use for business other than your me.com and your OAG.ok.gov 

e-mail addresses? 

Mr. PRUITT. I am sorry, Senator. The ‘‘me’’ address is not a business e-mail address. I am not sure why it was designated as such. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, maybe we can just correct the filing 

on that. 
489 

Mr. PRUITT. There are no other e-mail addresses, if that is your 

question, Senator. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We have gone through the cases that you 

list as your environmental cases. When we take out the cases that 

were started by your predecessor, Drew Edmonson, and when you 

take out the cases that are fish kill cases, which I understand is 

a formulaic matter that is resolved by letter at the staff level, you 

count the fish, you pay the fee, and when you take out the qui tam 

cases, which are, for those who aren’t lawyers, a private individual 

who brings an action, and then the Attorney General can step in 

and take the action over if they want, but it is brought in the first 

instance by a private individual. And then if you take out the cases 

in which you sued EPA, there is virtually nothing left. 

And in addition to that we have that you closed the environmental protection unit in Oklahoma as a free standing unit. You 

told me when we met that you had rolled it into your federalism 

unit. But I was just on the federalism unit’s Web site, and the word 

‘‘environmental’’ doesn’t even appear on that. It appears to be run 

by the Solicitor General. It says over and over again that it is involved in appellate litigation. And of course if you are bringing an 

action you are not starting at the appellate level. 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, if I may, the Deputy Solicitor General, 

Clayton Eubanks, was actually employed by the previous Attorney 

General. He has been designated the Deputy Solicitor General and 

is responsible for environmental related advice and consent to 

those agencies. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Yes. That’s a different function, though. 

That’s a different function than to bring an action. I have been an 

Attorney General, too. I know the difference. The Attorney General 

has an obligation to provide lawyers, to give advice to agencies. But 

you also have the authority to bring criminal actions if you wish. 

And you have the authority to bring civil actions if you wish. And 

it is those authorities that I believe have not gotten much attention. 

And the last piece of that, because you will have a chance to respond, but I am on a short clock, is that there was in Oklahoma 

an environmental crimes task force that your predecessor led. It 

describes, and I would ask to have these documents put into the 

record, from 1997 to 2010 the OECTF, the Environmental Crimes 

Task Force or the Environmental Protection Unit, in conjunction 

with EPA and other entities, conducted 142 criminal investigations, 

resulting in 56 prosecutions. Criminal cases resulted in individual 

convictions on 110 felonies, 21 misdemeanor counts, corporate convictions, 10 felony and 3 misdemeanor counts, $8 million in fines, 

28 years of jail time. We can put it in the record. 

Do you even participate in the Oklahoma Environmental Crimes 

Task Force still? 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
490 
491 

em 

Attorney General Edmondson created the Environmental Protection Unit 

(EPU) in 1996 to provide the state and its agencies with specialized legal advice and representation on environmental issues. Soon after forming the EPU, the attorney general added a criminal investigator to the staff in order to work with local, state and federal agencies to 

investigate the most egregious violations of Oklahoma's environmental laws. Attorneys in the EPU 

have been assigned to work with cabinet officials and state environmental agencies on a broad 

range of issues affecting the environment, including assistance with administrative enforcement, 

civil litigation and general counsel. Attorneys in the EPU have also drafted numerous Attorney 

General Opinions on environmental issues such as biomedical waste, waste tires, animal feeding 

operations, groundwater use, environmental setbacks. county zoning authority, solid waste and 

wildlife issues. The EPU has focused many of its efforts on pollution of Oklahoma's land and water 

caused by agricultural operations. For example, the EPU: 

• Initiated a federal lawsuit against fourteen poultry companies to stop and cleanup pollution 

of the Illinois River Watershed caused by the annual disposal of more than 300,000 tons of animal 

waste in the watershed. The case was tried from September 2009 through February 2010 and a 

ruling by the trial court is pending. The EPU also assisted in successfully opposing the State of Arkansas' motion for leave to file an original action in the U.S. Supreme Court to enjoin Oklahoma's 

lawsuit against the poultry companies. 

• Obtained a settlement with Simmons Foods to establish phosphorus and other pollutant limits in its Missouri poultry processing plant permit to discharge wastewater to Cave Springs Branch. 

a tributary of Honey Creek and Grand Lake. Simmons also agreed, among other things, to pay 

$300,000 to resolve the state's monetary claims, including $50,000 for residents to improve private 

water wells in the watershed. 

• Obtained a settlement with Moark Productions, Inc. and contractor James Childers to dose 

and clean up an unpermitted and unregistered poultry feeding operation near Miami. 

• Challenged issuance of a Seaboard Farms Inc.'s swine CAFO permit to operate next to the 

Beaver River Wildlife Management Area before the Board of Agriculture and in district court obtaining a settlement that resulted in replacement of waste lagoons, modified land application practices, 

monitoring and odor-abatement practices. 

• Conducted an administrative enforcement action against the Haner Roberts Ranch swine 

14 
492 

CAFO for numerous alleged violations of state law including illegal waste discharges. land application and lagoon leakage resulting in substantial modifications of the facility, prohibition on 

further land application and a fine of $360,000. 

• Reached a settlement with Seaboard Farms. Inc. to address challenges to its water and 

CAFO permits at Wakefield Sow Farm that placed limits on land application. modified lagoon 

leak detection, required covering of certain lagoons and required certain odor-control technology. 

• Conducted an investigation and enforcement action with the Department of Agriculture 

against Seaboard Foods swine facilities in Major and Kingfisher Counties alleging 11 violations 

involving management of wastewater and animal waste. The action was estimated to result in 

Seaboard investing about $6.9 million in environmental improvements at seven facilities and a 

payment of $180,000 in penalties and damages. 

• Conducted an investigation and enforcement action against Cimarron Pork, Inc. alleging 

improper carcass disposal and illegal wastewater discharges resulting in a settlement wherein 

the company spent nearly $1 million for clean up. 

• Conducted an administrative action with the Department of Agriculture against Alan 

Ritchey Dairy in Yuba resulting in a settlement closing and cleaning up the site. a $100,000 fine. 

and $45,000 for construction of an outdoor classroom. 

• Assisted the Oklahoma Secretary of Environment in negotiating an agreement with the 

State of Arkansas to reduce phosphorus pollution in the Illinois River Watershed, including placing phosphorus limits on wastewater treatment plants that were estimated to reduce loading by 

75 percent. 

• Provided oral and written testimony to the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials on proposed exemptions of animal waste from 

CERCLA and coordinated a muHi-state letter from attorneys general in California. Connecticut, 

Kentucky, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin expressing concerns with the 

exemptions. 

The EPU has worked to cleanup contamination at a number of former industrial and other sites 

across Oklahoma. At the Tar Creek Superfund Site. the EPU represents the DEQ and the Secretary of Environment on cleanup, cost recovery and natural resource damages. The EPU as· 

sisted in the formation of the Oklahoma Trustee Council and the Tri-State Partnership to facilitate 

cooperation between three states. eight tribal governments and two federal agencies on natural resource damage issues. The EPU. in conjunction with the other governments. settled the 

state's claims against one of the responsible mining companies. Asarco. l.l.C .. in a bankruptcy 

proceeding recovering $8.8 million for cleanup costs and Oklahoma specific NRD and more than 

$28.6 million in joint NRD for the Oklahoma Trustees. In addition, the EPU: 

• Finalized a settlement allowing a claim for $700,000 to resolve the State's claims for natural resources damages caused by the release of petroleum and hazardous substances at the 

abandoned Cyril Refinery from the APCO liquidating Trust in a Delaware bankruptcy proceeding. 

15 
493 

• Worked with the EPA and Department of Justice in handling the litigation involving the Double Eagle Superfund Site in Oklahoma City. The EPU represents the ODEQ in its response cost 

claim and the Oklahoma Secretary of Environment for natural resource damage at the former refinery. Following years of litigation, the DOJ and EPU recently negotiated settlements in the Double 

Eagle case with Union Pacific and other responsible parties for approximately $24.7 million for the 

federal and state parties. 

• Handled litigation against North Tulsa Landfill to close the facility until required upgrades 

estimated at $3.7 million could be implemented to bring it into compliance with state law. 

• Challenged a plan to decommission and reclaim a uranium conversion facility before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the 1oth Circuit Court of Appeals resulting in a mediated settlement requiring offsite transfer of certain waste and other modifications to protect human heanh and 

the environment. 

• Challenged a permit to mine gravel from a scenic river by successfully obtaining an agreement to keep the operation out of the stream channel. 

• Assisted the DEQ with several enforcement actions including actions to address out-of-state 

waste transfers. raw sewage overflows. and unsafe public water supplies. 

The EPU has also been involved in issues involving the use of groundwater or surface water across 

Oklahoma. For example. attorneys in the EPU: 

• Assisted the office in defending the constitutionality of a state law protecting the Arbuckle 

Simpson aquifer as a sole source groundwater aquifer in the case of Jacobs Ranch, L.l.C. v. 

Smith, et al., 2006 OK 34. 148 P. 3d 842 (2006). 

• Filed an amicus brief in the case of Messer-Bowers Co., Inc. v. State. 2000 OK 54, 8 P.3d 

877 (2000). arguing that the Water Board was required to determine whether waste by pollution 

would occur from all groundwater uses at a swine operation and the Oklahoma Supreme Court so 

held remanding the case for such a determination by the Board. 

• Represented the Department of Wildlife before the Water Board in a challenge to the issuance of a permit to withdraw water from a scenic river resulting in the first and only minimum instream flow limit on a water permit in Oklahoma. 

• Filed a brief in the case of Helderman v. Wright, 2006 OK 86, 152 P. 3d 855 (2006) successfully arguing in the Oklahoma Supreme Court that the OWRB must receive notice of cases involving stream water rights so that the attorney general may intervene to protect the public interest. 

16 
494 

In 1997, the EPU assis.fl'i~ forming the···llllltl\l1 .. '

Crimes Task ForQ! (:OI.O:ft#i)i'iil.pa~tner$hi)i) 

and fe._ad ageno.les. 

An attorney rn the EPU ser.w as c;nairpersGn of the 

until 2003 and the EPU ermine! tfl><estl~tor wO!il 

iflg <tgeflctes. From ·1997 201{J, ltl& OEC 

U $. EPA Cnmmal tn~siJgation Olvi&ion or other 

mvesttgalions resulting 111 56 prosecutions by !itate o 

have resulted rn mdMdual convictions on110 fe!Qny anti 

corporat~ convK;tkllrs 01' 1 o felony amJ !h~ rm:;;denl(larM coU11ts. 

include more than $8 rni!!IOH m fines and 28 years of ia!l time. 

• WorkeCJ with ttie v S EPA. u.s O<::lpar!ment of 

flee lor the Nort.tlern Oistrid of O~J~ to irtvesl~gate 

for vlOiallrnls of the Clean Waiar Aot relating tt:• waslewater 

Tulsa resulting 'n a h!roeml l)rosecution ;;tnd guilty pleas !:ly 

and two managers to one felony count aach tor mampulal! 

the Atkansas Rlvec Sioclatr was sentenced to r.vv ye<Jrn 

$5 million fino.; and $500JXJO for remm\)f\ity stt~VJW. ·rhe ma;~Qi~~· 

to $lX monlhs home detention aod three years pmbab{:JO. all> 

anrlto do t:ommumty serviL'l~ 

• Worked wtlh tht~ Multi~'IJI'lty Grand Jury Untl and the U S "''"' ,.,.. ""'' 

prosecute Kerrville Patnltngc and ~~ owoor, ~'~<. M~sk' 

~;~n!awful.disposal walllt~ COilliiii,nmoo 

two-ye.ar sentence and pay $100;000 in restdullon after 

• Worked w1th the MultiCounty Grand 

V!r(llllllel'lmJ QIJ<lli!y to II'IV(.'S\lgatlll 8fl{! .. {! tnlliec:titlll: Ji\!i!ltfl j, 

River iroslon · Cootro~;, resultlf\0 In a wii'Y ~·and c.orlvwmr!S 

Oklahoma Ta11-Goounis$.m fur· nl:l~tfrom lhe 

was orderi.ld to pay more than $1Hl00!;) in .re5titubon, s.ei'Ve 

! 00 hours of commun1ty ser'Vice. 

• \NQrked w1th th<'~ U.S €nwonmet~ml P~ion 

partrnent of Etwt:rvnme 

Glean Atr Act. fo1 t•srnn 

Ellt City The 1nves.t1gabon resulted In 

rnanaQt~r for negl1yenl endartgafffte.nt 

endangerment and a felOn~ count of 

manager .w:ts SE!fltenl1ed to serve $Ill: months. in fed£1rat prili!O!l 

dty supervtsor wa'!> sent~ to •t month!> in feOOra! P<bon,. 

release and 104 hours of comrnvnily service. 

17 
495 

Mr. PRUITT. Senator, as I have indicated, we work each day with 

our Department of Environmental Quality on enforcement along 

with other agencies. I guess it is a matter of ‘‘who takes the credit’’ 

for that type of enforcement. But those individuals have offered 

statements to this body. They are a matter of the record. You’ve 

heard statements that the Chairman has referred to that we have 

worked diligently with those agencies to enforce appropriately. And 

I would refer to their statements in response. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much. 

First of all, I appreciate your talking about environmental justice 

and mentioning that. We did talk about that, and I felt good about 

your personal commitment, at least to me, that you would pursue 

that. 

I just want to go through this last point. I want to put together 

a fact pattern here to let you have at it and dispute it. I know 

there is at least one point in here you dispute, and I really want 

to get to what I draw from the facts. And you can, again, have the 

last word. 

So what I am seeing, that I put together all the facts, just a pattern. There’s a litigation from your predecessor that you declined 

to conclude when you got in against polluting poultry producers 

who were dumping hundreds of thousands of tons of chicken waste 

into the Illinois River watershed. You shut down the environmental 

enforcement unit in your office. This is the one I know you do not 

agree with me on. But I see it as that you also attempted to suspend Oklahoma’s water quality standard for 3 years. 

But the last fact, and again, you have the last word here, sir, is 

that you also supported a constitutional amendment, State Question 777, the so-called Right to Farm amendment, that would have 

made it more difficult for the Oklahoma State Legislature, again, 

you talk about federalism, now trying to take the teeth out of the 

Oklahoma State Legislature and local governments to enact their 

own environmental laws in the future, 

And this kind of support, and I looked all throughout the magazines, you are going in support of this, it is clear. Here you are in 

the pro and con about supporting 777. Here is—most of the editorial boards were against you on this in your State. Here’s one 

from Tulsa World Endorsement that said the measure would prevent future State and local regulation on farming and livestock activities unless the State has a compelling State interest, a very 

high legal standard, as I know, not the lawyer that you are, sir, 

but I know that is a very hard one—standard—to meet. 

So this is the challenge, this idea that you are supporting federalism versus, it seems to me, a pattern of you being on the side 

of the polluters, and even trying to take the teeth out of the State 

legislature’s ability to regulate these harmful environmental toxins. 

I am happy that this ballot initiative was overwhelmingly defeated 

by Oklahoma voters. But as I see you ascending potentially to this 

very important position, sir, I just worry about whose side you are 

going to be on, given the fact pattern that I have about big industry, about big pollution, especially as I know the billions of animals 
496 

that we have in CAFOs that are poisoning rivers all over this country. 

I really just want you to respond to that, sir. And I will say, because this will be my last word, you will have it. I want to thank 

you for your indulgence. And I want to thank your family as well. 

Mr. PRUITT. Thank you, Senator. And let me respond. There’s 

been some confusion about the litigation. You made reference to 

several things there, and if I may respond to a couple. The litigation to which you refer, Senator Boozman actually referred to it as 

well; my predecessor did bring an action, approximately 2007 timeframe, against the poultry industry and many other defendants in 

the Northern District of Oklahoma. That case had been fully litigated, submitted to the court for decision before I ever came into 

office. It was an example of potentially regulation through litigation. And I have talked about that earlier in response to questions. 

I had every authority to dismiss that case when I came into office. I did not. That case is still pending today, awaiting a Federal 

judge’s decision. I have taken no action to undermine that case. I 

have done nothing but file briefs in support of the court making a 

decision. So that is a point of clarity on the litigation. 

With respect to our office, I submitted this in response to Senator 

Whitehouse’s request. We met last week and he asked about FTEs 

and budget. I have submitted response to him. We have almost a 

$700,000 budget that the Administrator of our office has attributed 

to environmental-related activities and seven FTEs that are associated with that as well. So I want to make sure that those two 

items were shared with you in response to your comments. 

Senator BOOKER. You have nothing to respond to on the State 

Question 777? 

Mr. PRUITT. The State Question 777, we are actually involved in 

the ballot drafting of those things. So though you represented that 

I was actively involved in an endorsement, I really was not as far 

as the actual vote. Now, there was some op-ed and some decisions. 

But I have tried to make sure that I didn’t get involved in that because of our other obligations in the office. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Carper. 

Senator BOOKER. And I can submit this for the record, sir? 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
497 

OCTOBER TERM, 1991 91 

Syllabus 

ARKANSAS ET AL. v. OKLAHOMA ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 

THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

No. 90-1262. Argued December 11, 1991-Decided February 26, 1992* 

The Clean Water Act provides for two sets of water quality measures: 

effluent limitations, which are promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency), and water quality standards, which 

are promulgated by the States. The Act generally prohibits the discharge of effluent into a navigable body of water unless the point source 

obtains a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit from a State with an EPA-approved permit program or from the 

EPA itself. A Fayetteville, Arkansas, sewage treatment plant received 

an EPA-issued permit, authorizing it to discharge effluent into a stream 

that ultimately reaches the Illinois River upstream from the Oklahoma 

border. Respondents, Oklahoma and other Oklahoma parties, challenged the permit before the EPA, alleging, inter alia, that the discharge violated Oklahoma water quality standards, which allow no degradation of water quality in the upper Illinois River. The EPA's Chief 

Judicial Officer remanded the initial affirmance of the permit by the 

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), ruling that the Act requires an 

NPDES permit to impose any effluent limitations necessary to comply 

with applicable state water quality standards, and that those standards 

would be violated only if the record shows by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the discharge would cause an actual detectable violation 

of Oklahoma's water quality standards. The ALJ then made detailed 

findings of fact, concluding that Fayetteville had satisfied the Chief Judicial Officer's standard, and the Chief Judicial Officer sustained the permit's issuance. The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the Act does 

not allow a permit to be issued where a proposed source would discharge 

effluent that would contribute to conditions currently constituting a violation of applicable water quality standards. It concluded that the Illinois River was already degraded, that the Fayetteville effluent would 

reach the river in Oklahoma, and that the effluent would contribute to 

the river's deterioration even though it would not detectably affect the 

river's water quality. 

*Together with No. 90-1266, Environmental Protection Agency v. 

Oklahoma et al., also on certiorari to the same court. 
498 

92 ARKANSAS v. OKLAHOMA 

Syllabus 

Held: The EPA's action was authorized by the Clean Water Act. 

Pp. 98-114. 

(a) Where interstate discharge is involved, both federal common law 

of nuisance, Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U.S. 304, and an affected State's 

common law, International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481,493, are 

pre-empted. Affected States may not block a permit, but must apply to 

the EPA Administrator, who may disapprove a plan if he concludes that 

the discharge will have an undue impact on interstate waters. Id., at 

490-491. Pp. 98-101. 

(b) The EPA has construed the Act as requiring that EPA-issued permits comply with the requirements for a permit issued under an approved state plan and with § 401(a) of the Act, which appears to prohibit 

the issuance of a federal permit over the objection of an affected State 

unless compliance with the affected State's water quality requirements 

can be insured. Pp. 101-103. 

(c) The EPA's requirement that the Fayetteville discharge comply 

with Oklahoma's water quality standards is a reasonable exercise of the 

substantial statutory discretion Congress has vested in the Agency. 

There is no need to address the question whether the Act requires compliance with affected States' standards, for it clearly does not limit the 

EPA's authority to mandate such compliance. EPA regulations, which 

since 1973 have required that an NPDES permit not be issued when 

compliance with affected States' water quality standards cannot be insured, are a reasonable exercise of the Agency's discretion and are a 

well-tailored means of reaching the Act's goal of achieving state water 

quality standards. The EPA's authority is not constrained by the limits 

in Ouellette, S1tpra, concerning an affected State's direct input into the 

permit process, does not conflict with the Act's legislative history and 

statutory scheme, and is not incompatible with the balance among 

competing policies and interests that Congress struck in the Act. 

Pp. 104-107. 

(d) Contrary to the Court of Appeals' interpretation, nothing in the 

Act mandates a complete ban on discharges into a waterway that is in 

violation of existing water quality standards. Instead, the Act vests in 

the EPA and the States broad authority to develop long-range, areawide programs to alleviate and eliminate existing pollution. Pp. 107-108. 

(e) The Court of Appeals exceeded the legitimate scope of judicial 

review of an agency adjudication when it invalidated the EPA's issuance 

of the permit on the ground that the Agency misinterpreted Oklahoma's 

water quality standards. It substituted its own reading of the law for 

the EPA's. Thus, it failed to give substantial deference to the Agency's 

reasonable, consistently held interpretation of its own regulations, 

which incorporate the Oklahoma standards. It also disregarded well-
499 

Cite as: 503 U. S. 91 (1992) 93 

Syllabus 

established standards for reviewing factual findings of agencies by making its own factual findings when the ALI's findings were supported by 

substantial evidence. See generally Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 

340 U.S. 474. As a result, the court's conclusion that the river's degradation was an important and relevant factor which the EPA failed to 

consider was based on its own erroneous interpretation of the controlling law. Had it been properly respectful of the EPA's permissible 

reading of the Act-that what matters is not the river's current status, 

but whether the proposed discharge will have a detectable effect on that 

status-it would not have adjudged the Agency's decision arbitrary and 

capricious. Pp. 109-114. 

908 F. 2d 595, reversed. 

STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. 

Edward W. Warren argued the cause for petitioners in No. 

90-1262. With him on the briefs were Winston Bryant, 

Attorney General of Arkansas, Mary B. Stallcup, Angela 

S. Jegley, David G. Norrell, James N McCord, Walter R. 

Niblock, and Nancy L. Hamm. Deputy Solicitor General 

Wallace argued the cause for petitioner in No. 90-1266. 

With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Starr, Assistant Attorney General Stewart, Harriet S. Shapiro, Michael 

A. McCord, Anne S. Almy, Gary S. Guzy, and E. Donald 

Elliott. 

Robert A. Butkin, Assistant Attorney General of Oklahoma, argued the cause for respondents in both cases. With 

him on the brief for respondents State of Oklahoma et al. 

were Susan B. Loving, Attorney General, Brita Haugland 

Cantrell, Assistant Attorney General, and Julian Fite. 

Theodore E. Dinsrnoor and Susan Hedrnan filed a brief for 

respondent Oklahoma Wildlife Federation. t 

tBriefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Colorado by Gale A. Norton, Attorney General, Raymond T Slaughter, Chief 

Deputy Attorney General, Timothy M. Tymkovich, Solicitor General, 

Martha E. Rudolph, Assistant Attorney General, and Martha Phillips 

Allbright; for the State of Nevada et al. by Nicholas J. Spaeth, Attorney 

General of North Dakota, Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General of 

Nevada, John P. Arnold, Attorney General of New Hampshire, and Mark 
500 

94 ARKANSASv.OKLAHOMA 

Opinion of the Court 

JusTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court. 

Pursuant to the Clean Water Act, 86 Stat. 816, as amended, 

33 U.S. C. § 1251 et seq., the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or Agency) issued a discharge permit to a new 

point source in Arkansas, about 39 miles upstream from the 

Oklahoma state line. The question presented in this litigation is whether the EPA's finding that discharges from the 

new source would not cause a detectable violation of OklahoBarnett, Attorney General of South Dakota; for the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies et al. by Lee C. White, Benjamin L. Brown, 

Howard Holme, Don A. Zimmerman, Geoff Wilson, Thomas W. Kelty, 

James M. Kaup, Fred G. Stickel III, Robert E. Johnson, John E. Gatherman, Mark I. Wallach, Roy D. Bates, Ogden Stokes, Thomas S. Smith, 

Robert J. Alfton, and John Dodge; for Champion International Corp. et al. 

by J. Jeffrey McNealey, Michael K. Glenn, Theodore L. Garrett, Corinne 

A. Goldstein, Charles R. Nestrud, Richard A. Flye, Jerry C. Jones, and 

Jess Askew III; for the Colorado Water Congress by Mark T. Pifher; 

and for the Mountain States Legal Foundation et al. by William Perry 

Pendley. 

Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of 

Illinois et al. by Roland W. Bu1·ris, Attorney General of Illinois, Rosalyn 

Kaplan, Solicitor General, and James L. Morgan, Assistant Attorney 

General, Chm·les W. Burson, Attorney C'.reneral of Tennessee, John Knox 

Walknp, Solicitor General, and Michael D. Pearigen, Deputy Attorney 

General, Jimmy Evans, Attorney General of Alabama, Grant Woods, Attorney General of Arizona, Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General of California, Richard Blnmenthal, Attorney General of Connecticut, Charles M. 

Oberly III, Attorney General of Delaware, Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General of Florida, Michael E. Carpenter, Attorney General of Maine, 

and Jon H. Edwards, Assistant Attorney General, Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, Mike Moore, Attorney General of Mississippi, 

Robert J. Del Tufa, Attorney General of New Jersey, and T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of South Carolina; for the Cherokee Nation of 

Oklahoma by Hm Wilcoxen; for the Natural Resources Defense Council 

et al. by Jessica, C. Landman and Mark Van Pntten; for the Scenic Rivers 

Association of Oklahoma et al. by Kathy Carter-White, Joel Glenn Richardson, Harvey Chaffin, and Bill J. Ballard; for the Sierra Club by 

Stephan C. Volker; for the U. S. Senator from Oklahoma, Don Nickles, 

et al. by James George Jatras; and for Mike Synar, Member of Congress, 

prose. 
501 

Cite as: 503 U.S. 91 (1992) 95 

Opinion of the Court 

rna's water quality standards satisfied the EPA's duty to protect the interests of the downstream State. Disagreeing 

with the Court of Appeals, we hold that the Agency's action 

was authorized by the statute. 

I 

In 1985, the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas, applied to the 

EPA, seeking a permit for the city's new sewage treatment 

plant under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES). After the appropriate procedures, the 

EPA, pursuant to § 402(a)(l) of the Act, 33 U.S. C. 

§ 1342(a)(1), issued a permit authorizing the plant to discharge up to half of its effluent (to a limit of 6.1 million 

gallons per day) into an unnamed stream in northwestern 

Arkansas.1 That flow passes through a series of three 

creeks for about 17 miles, and then enters the Illinois River 

at a point 22 miles upstream from the Arkansas-Oklahoma 

border. 

The permit imposed specific limitations on the quantity, 

content, and character of the discharge and also included a 

number of special conditions, including a provision that if a 

study then underway indicated that more stringent limitations were necessary to ensure compliance with Oklahoma's 

water quality standards, the permit would be modified to 

incorporate those limits. App. 84. 

Respondents challenged this permit before the EPA, alleging, inter alia, that the discharge violated the Oklahoma 

water quality standards. Those standards provide that "no 

degradation [of water quality] shall be allowed" in the upper 

Illinois River, including the portion of the river immediately 

downstream from the state line.2 

1 The permit also authorized the plant to discharge the remainder of its 

effluent into the White River, a river that does not flow into Oklahoma; 

this aspect of the permit is not at issue in this litigation. 2 Section 5 of the Oklahoma water quality standards provides: 

"All streams and bodies of water designated as (a) are protected by 

prohibition of any new point source discharge of wastes or increased load 
502 

96 ARKANSASv.OKLAHOMA 

Opinion of the Court 

Following a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) 

concluded that the Oklahoma standards would not be implicated unless the contested discharge had Hsomething more 

than a mere de minimis impact" on the State's waters. He 

found that the discharge would not have an Hundue impact" 

on Oklahoma's waters and, accordingly, affirmed the issuance of the permit. App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 90-1262, 

pp. 101a-103a (emphasis deleted). 

On a petition for review, the EPA's Chief Judicial Officer 

first ruled that § 301(b)(l)(C) of the Clean Water Act "requires an NPDES permit to impose any effluent limitations 

necessary to comply with applicable state water quality 

standards." 3 Id., at 116a-117a. He then held that the Act 

from an existing point source except under conditions described in Section 3. 

"All streams designated by the State as 'scenic river areas,' and such 

tributaries of those streams as may be appropriate will be so designated. 

Best management practices for control ofnonpoint source discharge should 

be initiated when feasible." App. 46-47. 

Oklahoma has designated the portion of the Illinois River immediately 

downstream from the state line as a "scenic river." Okla. Stat., Tit. 82, 

§ 1452(b)(l) (Supp. 1989); see also App. 54. 

Section 3 of the Oklahoma water quality standards provides, in relevant part: 

"The intent of the Anti-degradation Policy is to protect all waters of the 

State from quality degradation. Existing instream water uses shall be 

maintained and protected. No further water quality degradation which 

would interfere with or become injurious to existing instream water uses 

shall be allowed. Oklahoma's waters constitute a valuable State resource 

and shall be protected, maintained and improved for the benefit of all 

the citizens. 

"No degradation shall be allowed in high quality waters which constitute an outstanding resource or in waters of exceptional recreational or 

ecological significance. These include water bodies located in national and 

State parks, Wildlife Refuges, and those designated 'Scenic Rivers' in Appendix A." App. 27-28. 

:l Section 301(b)(l)(C) provides, in relevant part, that 

"there shall be achieved-
503 

Cite as: 503 U. S. 91 (1992) 97 

Opinion of the Court 

and EPA regulations offered greater protection for the 

downstream State than the ALJ's "undue impact" standard 

suggested. He explained the proper standard as follows: 

"[A] mere theoretical impairment of Oklahoma's water 

quality standards-i. e., an infinitesimal impairment predicted through modeling but not expected to be actually 

detectable or measurable-should not by itself block the 

issuance of the permit. In this case, the permit should 

be upheld if the record shows by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the authorized discharges would not cause 

an actual detectable violation of Oklahoma's water quality standards." Id., at 117a (emphasis in original). 

On remand, the ALJ made detailed findings of fact and 

concluded that the city had satisfied the standard set forth 

by the Chief Judicial Officer. Specifically, the ALJ found 

that there would be no detectable violation of any of the 

components of Oklahoma's water quality standards. Id., at 

127a-143a. The Chief Judicial Officer sustained the issuance 

of the permit. Id., at 145a-153a. 

Both the petitioners in No. 90-1262 (collectively Arkansas) 

and the respondents in this litigation sought judicial review. 4 

Arkansas argued that the Clean Water Act did not require 

an Arkansas point source to comply with Oklahoma's water 

quality standards. Oklahoma challenged the EPA's determination that the Fayetteville discharge would not produce 

a detectable violation of the Oklahoma standards. 

The Court of Appeals did not accept either of these arguments. The court agreed with the EPA that the statute required compliance with Oklahoma's water quality standards, 

"(C) not later than July 1, 1977, any more stringent limitation, including 

those necessary to meet water quality standards ... established pursuant 

to any State law or regulations ... or requrred to implement any applicable water quality standard established pursuant to this chapter." 33 

U. S. C. § 1311(b)(l)(C) (emphasis added). 4 The Arkansas petition was filed in the Court of Appeals for the Eighth 

Circuit and transferred to the Tenth Circuit where it was consolidated 

with the petition filed by the respondents. 
504 

98 ARKANSAS~ OKLAHOMA 

Opinion of the Court 

see 908 F. 2d 595, 602-615 (CAlO 1990), and did not disagree 

with the Agency's determination that the discharges from 

the Fayetteville plant would not produce a detectable violation of those standards. Id., at 631-633. Nevertheless, relying on a theory that neither party had advanced, the Court 

of Appeals reversed the Agency's issuance of the Fayetteville permit. The court first ruled that the statute requires 

that "where a proposed source would discharge effluents that 

would contribute to conditions currently constituting a violation of applicable water quality standards, such [a] proposed 

source may not be permitted." Id., at 620. Then the court 

found that the Illinois River in Oklahoma was "already degraded," that the Fayetteville effluent would reach the Illinois River in Oklahoma, and that that effluent could "be expected to contribute to the ongoing deterioration of the 

scenic [Illinois R]iver" in Oklahoma even though it would not 

detectably affect the river's water quality. Id., at 621-629. 

The importance and the novelty of the Court of Appeals' 

decision persuaded us to grant certiorari. 499 U. S. 946 

(1991). We now reverse. 

II 

Interstate waters have been a font of controversy since 

the founding of the Nation. E. g., Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 

Wheat. 1 (1824). This Court has frequently resolved disputes between States that are separated by a common river, 

see, e. g., Ohio v. Kentucky, 444 U. S. 335 (1980), that border 

the same body of water, see, e. g., New York v. New Jersey, 

256 U. S. 296 (1921), or that are fed by the same river basin, 

see, e. g., New Jersey v. New York, 283 U. S. 336 (1931). 

Among these cases are controversies between a State that 

introduces pollutants to a waterway and a downstream State 

that objects. See, e. g., Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 496 

(1906). In such cases, this Court has applied principles of 

common law tempered by a respect for the sovereignty of 

the States. Compare id., at 521, with Georgia v. Tennessee 

Copper Co., 206 U. S. 230, 237 (1907). In forging what "may 
505 

Cite as: 503 U. S. 91 (1992) 99 

Opinion of the Court 

not improperly be called interstate common law," Illinois 

v. Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91, 105-106 (1972) (Milwaukee I), 

however, we remained aware "that new federal laws and new 

federal regulations may in time pre-empt the field of federal 

common law of nuisance." !d., at 107. 

In Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U. S. 304 (1981) (Milwaukee 

II), we held that the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

Amendments of 1972 did just that. In addressing Illinois' 

claim that Milwaukee's discharges into Lake Michigan constituted a nuisance, we held that the comprehensive regulatory 

regime created by the 1972 amendments pre-empted Illinois' 

federal common law remedy. We observed that Congress 

had addressed many of the problems we had identified in 

Milwaukee I by providing a downstream State with an opportunity for a hearing before the source State's permitting 

agency, by requiring the latter to explain its failure to accept 

any recommendations offered by the downstream State, and 

by authorizing the EPA, in its discretion, to veto a source 

State's issuance of any permit if the waters of another State 

may be affected. Milwaukee II, 451 U. S., at 325-326. 

In Milwaukee II, the Court did not address whether the 

1972 amendments had supplanted state common law remedies as well as the federal common law remedy. See id., at 

310, n. 4. On remand, Illinois argued that § 510 of the Clean 

Water Act, 33 U. S. C. § 1370, expressly preserved the State's 

right to adopt and enforce rules that are more stringent than 

federal standards. 5 The Court of Appeals accepted Illinois' 

reading of§ 510, but held that that section did "no more than 

5 Section 510 provides in relevant part: 

"Except as expressly provided in this [Act], nothing in this [Act] shall 

(1) preclude or deny the right of any State or political subdivision thereof 

or interstate agency to adopt or enforce (A) any standard or limitation 

respecting discharges of pollutants, or (B) any requirement respecting control or abatement of pollution [with exceptions]; or (2) be construed as 

impairing or in any manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the States 

with respect to the waters (including botmdary waters) of such States." 

33 U. S. C. § 1370 (emphasis added). 
506 

100 ARKANSAS v. OKLAHOMA 

Opinion of the Court 

to save the right and jurisdiction of a state to regulate activity occurring within the confines of its boundary waters." 

Illinois v. Milwaukee, 731 F. 2d 403, 413 (CA7 1984), cert. 

denied, 469 U. S. 1196 (1985). 

This Court subsequently endorsed that analysis in International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U. S. 481 (1987), in which 

Vermont property owners claimed that the pollution discharged into Lake Champlain by a paper company located in 

New York constituted a nuisance under Vermont law. The 

Court held the Clean Water Act taken "as a whole, its purposes and its history" pre-empted an action based on the law 

of the affected State and that the only state law applicable 

to an interstate discharge is "the law of the State in which 

the point source is located." Id., at 493, 487. Moreover, in 

reviewing § 402(b) of the Act, the Court pointed out that 

when a new permit is being issued by the source State's 

permit-granting agency, the downstream State 

"does not have the authority to block the issuance of the 

permit if it is dissatisfied with the proposed standards. 

An affected State's only recourse is to apply to the EPA 

Administrator, who then has the discretion to disapprove the permit if he concludes that the discharges 

will have an undue impact on interstate waters. 

§ 1342(d)(2) .... Thus the Act makes it clear that affected 

States occupy a subordinate position to source States in 

the federal regulatory program." Id., at 490-491.6 

6 This description of the downstream State's role in the issuance of a 

new permit by a source State was apparently consistent with the EPA's 

interpretation of the Act at the time. The Government's amicus curiae 

brief in Ouellette stated that "the affected neighboring state [has] only an 

advisory role in the formulation of applicable effluent standards or limitations. The affected state may try to persuade the federal government 

or the source state to increase effluent requirements, but ultimately 

possesses no statutory authority to compel that res1tlt, even when its 

waters are adversely affected by out-of-state pollution. See 33 U. S. C. 

§ 1341(a)(2), 1342(b)(3) and (5) .... " Brief for United States as Amicus 

Curiae, 0. T. 1986, No. 85-1233, p. 19 (emphasis added; footnote omitted). 
507 

Cite as: 503 U.S. 91 (1992) 101 

Opinion of the Court 

Unlike the foregoing cases, this litigation involves not a 

state-issued permit, but a federally issued permit. To explain the significance of this distinction, we comment further 

on the statutory scheme before addressing the specific issues 

raised by the parties. 

III 

The Clean Water Act anticipates a partnership between 

the States and the Federal Government, animated by a 

shared objective: "to restore and maintain the chemical, 

physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." 

33 U. S. C. § 1251(a). Toward this end, the Act provides for 

two sets of water quality measures. "Effluent limitations" 

are promulgated by the EPA and restrict the quantities, 

rates, and concentrations of specified substances which 

are discharged from point sources. See §§ 1311, 1314. 

"[W]ater quality standards" are, in general, promulgated by 

the States and establish the desired condition of a waterway. 

See § 1313. These standards supplement effluent limitations "so that numerous point sources, despite individual 

compliance with effluent limitations, may be further regulated to prevent water quality from falling below acceptable 

levels." EPA v. California ex rel. State Water Resources 

Control Bd., 426 U. S. 200, 205, n. 12 (1976). 

The EPA provides States with substantial guidance in the 

drafting of water quality standards. See generally 40 CFR 

pt. 131 (1991) (setting forth model water quality standards). 

Moreover, § 303 of the Act requires, inter alia, that state 

authorities periodically review water quality standards and 

secure the EPA's approval of any revisions in the standards. 

If the EPA recommends changes to the standards and the 

State fails to comply with that recommendation, the Act authorizes the EPA to promulgate water quality standards for 

the State. 33 U. S. C. § 1313(c). 

The primary means for enforcing these limitations and 

standards is the NPDES, enacted in 1972 as a critical part 

of Congress' "complete rewriting" of federal water pollution 
508 

102 ARKANSAS v. OKLAHOMA 

Opinion of the Court 

law. Milwaukee II, 451 U. S., at 317. Section 301(a) of the 

Act, 33 U.S. C. § 1311(a), generally prohibits the discharge of 

any effluent into a navigable body of water unless the point 

source has obtained an NPDES permit. Section 402 establishes the NPDES permitting regime, and describes two 

types of permitting systems: state permit programs that 

must satisfy federal requirements and be approved by the 

EPA, and a federal program administered by the EPA. 

Section 402(b) authorizes each State to establish "its own 

permit program for discharges into navigable waters within 

its jurisdiction." 33 U. S. C. § 1342(b). Among the requirements the state program must satisfy are the procedural protections for downstream States discussed in Ouellette and 

Milwaukee II. See §§ 1342(b)(3), (5)_7 Although these provisions do not authorize the downstream State to veto the 

issuance of a permit for a new point source in another State, 

the Administrator retains authority to block the issuance of 

any state-issued permit that is "outside the guidelines and 

requirements" of the Act. § 1342(d)(2).8 

7 Section 402(b) requires state permit programs 

"(3) [t]o insure that . . . any other State the waters of which may be 

affected ... receive notice of each application for a permit and to provide 

an opportunity for public hearing before a ruling on each such application; 

"(5) [t]o insure that any State (other than the permitting State), whose 

waters may be affected by the issuance of a permit may submit written 

recommendations to the permitting State (and the Administrator) with 

respect to any permit application and, if any part of such written recommendations are not accepted by the permitting State, that the permitting 

State will notify such affected State (and the Administrator) in writing of 

its failure to so accept such recommendations together with its reasons for 

so doing." 33 U.S. C. § 1342(b). 

Although § 402(b) focuses on state-issued permits, § 402(a)(3) requires 

that, in issuing an NPDES permit, the Administrator follow the same procedures required of state permit programs. See 33 U. S. C. § 1342(a)(3); 

see also § 1341(a)(2). 8 Section 402(d)(2) provides: 

"(2) No permit shall issue (A) if the Administrator within ninety days 

of the date of his notification under subsection (b)(5) of this section objects 
509 

Cite as: 503 U. S. 91 (1992) 103 

Opinion of the Court 

In the absence of an approved state program, the EPA 

may issue an NPDES permit under § 402(a) of the Act. (In 

these cases, for example, because Arkansas had not been authorized to issue NPDES permits when the Fayetteville 

plant was completed, the permit was issued by the EPA itself.) The EPA's permit program is subject to the "same 

terms, conditions, and requirements" as a state permit program. 33 U.S. C. § 1342(a)(3). Notwithstanding this general symmetry, the EPA has construed the Act as requiring 

that EPA-issued NPDES permits also comply with §401(a). 

That section, which predates § 402 and the NPDES, applies 

to a broad category of federal licenses, and sets forth requirements for "[a]ny applicant for a Federal license or 

permit to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, 

the construction or operation of facilities, which may result 

in any discharge into the navigable waters." 33 U.S. C. 

§ 1341(a). Section 401(a)(2) appears to prohibit the issuance 

of any federal license or permit over the objection of an affected State unless compliance with the affected State's 

water quality requirements can be ensured.9 

in writing to the issuance of such permit, or (B) if the Administrator within 

ninety days of the date of transmittal of the proposed permit by the State 

objects in writing to the issuance of such permit as being outside the 

guidelines and requirements of this chapter. Whenever the Administrator objects to the issuance of a permit under this paragraph such written 

objection shall contain a statement of the reasons for such objection and 

the effluent limitations and conditions which such permit would include if 

it were issued by the Administrator." 33 U. S. C. § 1342(d)(2). 9 Section 401(a)(2) provides, in relevant part: 

"Whenever such a discharge may affect, as determined by the Administrator, the quality of the waters of any other State, the Administrator ... 

shall so notify such other State, the licensing or permitting agency, and 

the applicant. If, within sixty days after receipt of such notification, such 

other State determines that such discharge will affect the quality of its 

waters so as to violate any water quality requirements in such State, and 

within such sixty-day period notifies the Administrator and the licensing 

or permitting agency in writing of its objection to the issuance of such 

license or permit and requests a public hearing on such objection, the 

licensing or permitting agency shall hold such a hearing. The Administra-
510 

104 ARKANSASv.OKLAHOMA 

Opinion of the Court 

IV 

The parties have argued three analytically distinct questions concerning the interpretation of the Clean Water Act. 

First, does the Act require the EPA, in crafting and issuing 

a permit to a point source in one State, to apply the water 

quality standards of downstream States? Second, even if 

the Act does not require as much, does the Agency have the 

statutory authority to mandate such compliance? Third, 

does the Act provide, as the Court of Appeals held, that once 

a body of water fails to meet water quality standards no 

discharge that yields effluent that reach the degraded waters 

will be permitted? 

In these cases, it is neither necessary nor prudent for us 

to resolve the first of these questions. In issuing the Fayetteville permit, the EPA assumed it was obligated by both 

the Act and its own regulations to ensure that the Fayetteville discharge would not violate Oklahoma's standards. See 

App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 90-1262, pp. 116a-117a, and 

n. 14. As we discuss below, this assumption was permissible 

and reasonable and therefore there is no need for us to address whether the Act requires as much. Moreover, much 

of the analysis and argument in the briefs of the parties relies on statutory provisions that govern not only federal permits issued pursuant to §§ 401(a) and 402(a), but also state 

permits issued under § 402(b). It seems unwise to evaluate 

those arguments in a case such as these, which only involve 

a federal permit. 

tor shall at such hearing submit his evaluation and recommendations with 

respect to any such objection to the licensing or permitting agency. Such 

agency, based upon the recommendations of such State, the Administrator, 

and upon any additional evidence, if any, presented to the agency at the 

hearing, shall condition such license or permit in such manner as may be 

necessary to insure compliance with applicable water quality requirements. If the imposition of conditions cannot insure such compliance such 

agency shall not issue such license or permit." 33 U.S. C. § 1341(a)(2). 
511 

Cite as: 503 U. S. 91 (1992) 105 

Opinion of the Court 

Our decision not to determine at this time the scope of the 

Agency's statutory obligations does not affect our resolution 

of the second question, which concerns the Agency's statutory authority. Even if the Clean Water Act itself does not 

require the Fayetteville discharge to comply with Oklahoma's water quality standards, the statute clearly does not 

limit the EPA's authority to mandate such compliance. 

Since 1973, EPA regulations have provided that an 

NPDES permit shall not be issued "[w]hen the imposition of 

conditions cannot ensure compliance with the applicable 

water quality requirements of all affected States." 10 40 

CFR § 122.4(d) (1991); see also 38 Fed. Reg. 13533 (1973); 

40 CFR § 122.44(d) (1991). Those regulations-relied upon 

by the EPA in the issuance of the Fayetteville permitconstitute a reasonable exercise of the Agency's statutory 

authority. 

Congress has vested in the Administrator broad discretion 

to establish conditions for NPDES permits. Section 402(a) 

(2) provides that for EPA-issued permits "[t]he Administrator shall prescribe conditions ... to assure compliance with 

the requirements of [§402(a)(l)] and such other requirements 

as he deems appropriate." 33 U. S. C. § 1342(a)(2) (emphasis 

added). Similarly, Congress preserved for the Administrator broad authority to oversee state permit programs: 

"No permit shall issue ... if the Administrator ... 

objects in writing to the issuance of such permit as being 

outside the guidelines and requirements of this chapter." § 1342(d)(2). 

The regulations relied on by the EPA were a perfectly 

reasonable exercise of the Agency's statutory discretion. 

The application of state water quality standards in the interstate context is wholly consistent with the Act's broad purpose "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and 

10 This restriction applies whether the permit is issued by the EPA or 

by an approved state program. See 40 CFR § 123.25 (1991). 
512 

106 ARKANSAS v. OKLAHOMA 

Opinion of the Court 

biological integrity of the Nation's waters." 33 U. S. C. 

§ 1251(a). Moreover, as noted above, § 301(b)(l)(C) expressly 

identifies the achievement of state water quality standards 

as one of the Act's central objectives. The Agency's regulations conditioning NPDES permits are a well-tailored means 

of achieving this goal. 

Notwithstanding this apparent reasonableness, Arkansas 

argues that our description in Ouellette of the role of affected 

States in the permit process and our characterization of the 

affected States' position as "subordinate," see 479 U.S., at 

490-491, indicates that the EPA's application of the Oklahoma standards was error. We disagree. Our statement in 

Ouellette concerned only an affected State's input into the 

permit process; that input is clearly limited by the plain language of § 402(b). Limits on an affected State's direct participation in permitting decisions, however, do not in any way 

constrain the EPA's authority to require a point source to 

comply with downstream water quality standards. 

Arkansas also argues that regulations requiring compliance with downstream standards are at odds with the legislative history of the Act and with the statutory scheme established by the Act. Although we agree with Arkansas 

that the Act's legislative history indicates that Congress intended to grant the Administrator discretion in his oversight 

of the issuance of NPDES permits,11 we find nothing in that 

history to indicate that Congress intended to preclude the 

EPA from establishing a general requirement that such permits be conditioned to ensure compliance with downstream 

water quality standards. 

Similarly, we agree with Arkansas that in the Clean Water 

Act Congress struck a careful balance among competing policies and interests, but do not find the EPA regulations con11 See, e. g., 1 Legislative History of Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Committee Print compiled for the Senate Committee on 

Public Works by the Library of Congress), Ser. No. 93-1, pp. 322, 388-389, 

814 (1973); see also 33 U. S. C. § 1342(d)(3). 
513 

Cite as: 503 U. S. 91 (1992) 107 

Opinion of the Court 

cerning the application of downstream water quality standards at all incompatible with that balance. Congress, in 

crafting the Act, protected certain sovereign interests of the 

States; for example, § 510 allows States to adopt more demanding pollution-control standards than those established 

under the Act. Arkansas emphasizes that § 510 preserves 

such state authority only as it is applied to the waters of the 

regulating State. Even assuming Arkansas' construction of 

§ 510 is correct, cf. id., at 493, that section only concerns state 

authority and does not constrain the EPA's authority to promulgate reasonable regulations requiring point sources in 

one State to comply with water quality standards in downstream States. 

For these reasons, we find the EPA's requirement that the 

Fayetteville discharge comply with Oklahoma's water quality 

standards to be a reasonable exercise of the Agency's substantial statutory discretion. Cf. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837,842-

845 (1984). 

v 

The Court of Appeals construed the Clean Water Act to 

prohibit any discharge of effluent that would reach waters 

already in violation of existing water quality standards. 12 

We find nothing in the Act to support this reading. 

12 "[W]e hold that the Clean Water Act prohibits granting an NPDES 

permit under the circumstances of this case (i. e., where applicable water 

quality standards have already been violated) and reverse EPA's decision 

to permit Fayetteville to discharge any part of its effluent to the Illinois 

River Basin." 908 F. 2d 595, 616 (CAlO 1990). 

"Congress cannot reasonably be presumed to have intended to exclude 

from the CWNs 'all-encompassing program,' 451 U.S., at 318, a permitting 

decision arising in circumstances such as those of this case. It is even 

more unfathomable that Congress fashioned a 'comprehensive ... policy 

for the elimination of water pollution,' id., which sanctions continued pollution once minimum water quality standards have been transgressed. 

More likely, Congress simply never contemplated that EPA or a state 

would consider it permissible to authorize further pollution under such 
514 

108 ARKANSASv.OKLAHOMA 

Opinion of the Court 

The interpretation of the statute adopted by the court had 

not been advanced by any party during the Agency or court 

proceedings. Moreover, the Court of Appeals candidly acknowledged that its theory Hhas apparently never before 

been addressed by a federal court." 908 F. 2d, at 620, n. 39. 

The only statutory provision the court cited to support its 

legal analysis was § 402(h), see id., at 633, which merely authorizes the EPA (or a state permit program) to prohibit a 

publicly owned treatment plant that is violating a condition 

of its NPDES permit from accepting any additional pollutants for treatment until the ongoing violation has been corrected. See 33 U. S. C. § 1342(h). 

Although the Act contains several provisions directing 

compliance with state water quality standards, see, e. g., 

§ 1311(b)(l)(C), the parties have pointed to nothing that mandates a complete ban on discharges into a waterway that is 

in violation of those standards. The statute does, however, 

contain provisions designed to remedy existing water quality 

violations and to allocate the burden of reducing undesirable 

discharges between existing sources and new sources. See, 

e. g., § 1313(d). Thus, rather than establishing the categorical ban announced by the Court of Appeals-which might 

frustrate the construction of new plants that would improve 

existing conditions-the Clean Water Act vests in the EPA 

and the States broad authority to develop long-range, areawide programs to alleviate and eliminate existing pollution. 

See, e. g., § 1288(b)(2). 

To the extent that the Court of Appeals relied on its interpretation of the Act to reverse the EPA's permitting decision, that reliance was misplaced. 

circumstances. We will not ascribe to the Act either the gaping loophole 

or the irrational purpose necessary to uphold EPA's action in this case." 

!d., at 632 (footnotes omitted). 
515 

Cite as: 503 U.S. 91 (1992) 109 

Opinion of the Court 

VI 

The Court of Appeals also concluded that the EPA's issuance of the Fayetteville permit was arbitrary and capricious 

because the Agency misinterpreted Oklahoma's water quality standards. The primary difference 13 between the court's 

and the Agency's interpretation of the standards derives 

from the court's construction of the Act. Contrary to the 

EPA's interpretation of the Oklahoma standards, the Court 

of Appeals read those standards as containing the same categorical ban on new discharges that the court had found in 

the Clean Water Act itself. Although we do not believe the 

text of the Oklahoma standards supports the court's reading 

(indeed, we note that Oklahoma itself had not advanced that 

interpretation in its briefs in the Court of Appeals), we reject it for a more fundamental reason-namely, that the 

Court of Appeals exceeded the legitimate scope of judicial 

review of an agency adjudication. To emphasize the importance of this point, we shall first briefly assess the soundness 

of the EPA's interpretation and application of the Oklahoma 

13 The court identified three errors in the EPA's reading of the Oklahoma 

standards. First, the court correctly observed that the ALJ and the 

Chief Judicial Officer misinterpreted § 4.10(c) of the standards as governing only the discharge of phosphorus into lakes, rather than the discharge 

of phosphorus into lakes and into all "perennial and intermittent streams." 

!d., at 617 (emphasis omitted). This error was harmless because the ALJ 

found that the discharge into Lake Francis would comply with §4.10(c) 

and it is undisputed that that discharge produced a greater threat to the 

slow-moving water of the lake than to the rapid flow in the river. 

The second flaw identified by the court was the AL,J's mistaken reliance 

on the 1985, rather than the 1982 version, of the Oklahoma standards. We 

agree with the Chief Judicial Officer, who also noted this error, that the 

portions of the two versions relevant to this case "do not differ materially." 

App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 90-1262, p. 150a. Therefore, this error was 

also harmless. 

Because these two errors were harmless, we have focused in the text 

on the major difference between the court's and the EPA's readings of the 

Oklahoma standards: the "no degradation" provision. 
516 

110 ARKANSAS~OKLAHOMA 

Opinion of the Court 

standards and then comment more specifically on the Court 

of Appeals' approach. 

As discussed above, an EPA regulation requires an 

NPDES permit to comply "with the applicable water quality requirements of all affected States." 40 CFR § 122.4(d) 

(1991). This regulation effectively incorporates into federal 

law those state-law standards the Agency reasonably determines to be "applicable." In such a situation, then, state 

water quality standards-promulgated by the States with 

substantial guidance from the EPA 14 and approved by the 

Agency-are part of the federal law of water pollution 

control. 

Two features of the body of law governing water pollution 

support this conclusion. First, as discussed more thoroughly above, we have long recognized that interstate water 

pollution is controlled by federal law. See supra, at 98-100. 

Recognizing that the system of federally approved state 

standards as applied in the interstate context constitutes 

federal law is wholly consistent with this principle. Second, 

treating state standards in interstate controversies as federal law accords with the Act's purpose of authorizing the 

EPA to create and manage a uniform system of interstate 

water pollution regulation. 

Because we recognize that, at least insofar as they affect 

the issuance of a permit in another State, the Oklahoma 

standards have a federal character, the EPA's reasonable, 

consistently held interpretation of those standards is entitled 

to substantial deference. Cf. INS v. National Center for 

Immigrants' Rights, 502 U.S. 183, 189-190 (1991); Chevron 

U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 

U. S. 837 (1984). In these cases, the Chief Judicial Officer 

ruled that the Oklahoma standards-which require that 

there be "no degradation" of the upper Illinois River-would 

14 See supra, at 101. Oklahoma's water quality standards closely track 

the EPA's model standards in effect at that time. Compare § 3 of the 

Oklahoma standards with 40 CFR § 35.1550(e)(l) (1981). 
517 

Cite as: 503 U. S. 91 (1992) 111 

Opinion of the Court 

only be violated if the discharge effected an "actually detectable or measurable" change in water quality. App. to Pet. 

for Cert. in No. 90-1262, p. 117a. 

This interpretation of the Oklahoma standards is certainly 

reasonable and consistent with the purposes and principles 

of the Clean Water Act. As the Chief Judicial Officer noted, 

"unless there is some method for measuring compliance, 

there is no way to ensure compliance." !d., at 118a, n. 16 

(internal quotation marks omitted; citation omitted). Moreover, this interpretation of the Oklahoma standards makes 

eminent sense in the interstate context: If every discharge 

that had some theoretical impact on a downstream State 

were interpreted as "degrading" the downstream waters, 

downstream States might wield an effective veto over upstream discharges. 

The EPA's application of those standards in these cases 

was also sound. On remand, the ALJ scrutinized the record 

and made explicit factual findings regarding four primary 

measures of water quality under the Oklahoma standards: 

eutrophication/5 esthetics/6 dissolved oxygen/7 and met15 Eutrophication is the "normally slow aging process by which a lake 

evolves into a bog or marsh . . . . During eutrophication the lake becomes 

so rich in nutritive compounds (especially nitrogen and phosphorus) that 

algae and other microscopic plant life become superabundant, thereby 

'choking' the lake .... " App. 57-58. With regard to eutrophication, 

the ALJ found that the Fayetteville plant would discharge 30 pounds of 

phosphorus per day, only about 6 pounds of which would reach the 

Arkansas/Oklahoma border, and that such a small amount would not result 

in an increase in eutrophication. App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 90-1262, 

p. 129a. 

16 With regard to esthetics, the ALJ concluded that the only discharged 

compound that would affect esthetics was phosphorus and that, again, the 

amount of that substance crossing the border would not affect the esthetic 

quality of Oklahoma's waters. !d., at 135a-136a. 17With regard to dissolved oxygen, the ALJ found that in the 39 miles 

between discharge and the border the effluent would experience "complete 

oxygen recovery" and therefore would not affect the dissolved oxygen levels in the river. Id., at 140a. 
518 

112 ARKANSAS v. OKLAHOMA 

Opinion of the Court 

als. 18 In each case, the ALJ found that the Fayetteville discharge would not lead to a detectable change in water quality. He therefore concluded that the Fayetteville discharge 

would not violate the Oklahoma water quality standards. Because we agree with the Agency's Chief Judicial Officer that 

these findings are supported by substantial evidence, we conclude that the Court of Appeals should have affirmed both 

the EPA's construction of the regulations and the issuance 

of the Fayetteville permit. 

In its review of the EPA's interpretation and application 

of the Oklahoma standards, the Court of Appeals committed 

three mutually compounding errors. 

First, the court failed to give due regard to the EPA's 

interpretation of its own regulations, as those regulations 

incorporate the Oklahoma standards. Instead the court 

voiced its own interpretation of the governing law and concluded that "where a proposed source would discharge effluents that would contribute to conditions currently constituting a violation of applicable water quality standards, such [a] 

proposed source may not be permitted." 908 F. 2d, at 620. 

As we have already pointed out, that reading of the law is 

not supported by the statute or by any EPA regulation. 

The Court of Appeals sat in review of an agency action and 

should have afforded the EPA's interpretation of the governing law an appropriate level of deference. See generally 

Chevron, supra, at 842-844. 

Second, the court disregarded well-established standards 

for reviewing the factual findings of agencies and instead 

made its own factual findings. The troubling nature of the 

court's analysis appears on the face of the opinion itself: At 

least four times, the court concluded that "there was substantial evidence before the ALJ to support" particular findings which the court thought appropriate, but which were 

18 With regard to metals, the ALJ concluded that the concentrations of 

metals would be so low as not to violate the Oklahoma standards. !d., 

at 143a. 
519 

Cite as: 503 U. S. 91 (1992) 113 

Opinion of the Court 

contrary to those actually made by the ALJ. 908 F. 2d, at 

620, 625, 627, 629. Although we have long recognized the 

"substantial evidence" standard in administrative law, the 

court below turned that analysis on its head. A court reviewing an agency's adjudicative action should accept the 

agency's factual findings if those findings are supported by 

substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See generally Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (1951). 

The court should not supplant the agency's findings merely 

by identifying alternative findings that could be supported 

by substantial evidence. 

Third, the court incorrectly concluded that the EPA's decision was arbitrary and capricious. This error is derivative 

of the court's first two errors. Having substituted its reading of the governing law for the Agency's, and having made 

its own factual findings, the Court of Appeals concluded that 

the EPA erred in not considering an important and relevant 

fact-namely, that the upper Illinois River was (by the 

court's assessment) already degraded. 

As we have often recognized, an agency ruling is "arbitrary and capricious if the agency has ... entirely failed to 

consider an important aspect of the problem." Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm M1d. 

Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 43 (1983). However, in 

these cases, the degraded status of the river is only an "important aspect" because of the Court of Appeals' novel and 

erroneous interpretation of the controlling law. Under the 

EPA's interpretation of that law, what matters is not the 

river's current status, but rather whether the proposed 

discharge will have a "detectable effect" on that status. If 

the Court of Appeals had been properly respectful of the 

Agency's permissible reading of the Act and the Oklahoma 

standards, the court would not have adjudged the Agency's 

decision arbitrary and capricious for this reason. 

In sum, the Court of Appeals made a policy choice that it 

was not authorized to make. Arguably, as that court sug-
520 

114 ARKANSASv.OKLAHOMA 

Opinion of the Court 

gested, it might be wise to prohibit any discharge into the 

Illinois River, even if that discharge would have no adverse 

impact on water quality. But it was surely not arbitrary for 

the EPA to conclude-given the benefits to the river from 

the increased flow of relatively clean water 19 and the benefits 

achieved in Arkansas by allowing the new plant to operate 

as designed-that allowing the discharge would be even 

wiser. It is not our role, or that of the Court of Appeals, to 

decide which policy choice is the better one, for it is clear 

that Congress has entrusted such decisions to the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is 

Reversed. 

1

" Justice Holmes recognized this potential benefit years ago: 

"There is no pretence that there is a nuisance of the simple kind that was 

known to the older common law. There is nothing which can be detected 

by the unassisted senses-no visible increase of filth, no new smell. On 

the contrary, it is proved that the great volume of pure water from Lake 

Michigan which is mixed with the sewage at the start has improved the 

Illinois River in these respects to a noticeable extent. Formerly it was 

sluggish and ill smelling. Now it is a comparatively clear stream to which 

edible fish have returned. Its water is drunk by the fisherman, it is said, 

without evil results." Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 496, 522 (1906). 
521 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGIONS 

Mr. Duane A Smith 

Exec;utive Director 

Oklahoma Wata-Resources Board 

3800 North Classen Street 

Oldilhoma City, OK 73118 

Dear Mr. Smith: 

1445 ROSS AVENUE. SUITE 1ZOO 

OIILLAS, lX 75202-2733 

DEC 2 9 lOOJ 

Tbis Jetter and attachment COliSiitute the results of' the U.S. E!Mronmental Protection 

Agt:1lcy's (EPA) review of the Oldah<ma Water Quality Standards (OWQS, OAC Tide 78S, 

Chapter 4S) interim revisions, received November 6, 2002, as requited under federal regulations 

8140CFJt. § 13l.S. We apologize fortbeleogthoflime it has tab:n to CODCludetbisn:view, but 

as you aware, we have been worJriDs closely with senior officials in Oklahoma as well as in 

Arkansas on issues related to those standards and their implementation. The •statement of Joint 

Principles and Actioua", sipd by repn:sentatives from both states on December 18, 2003, 

represeots au important step :tbrward toward acblevement of the standsrds we are approving 

today. 

Based on the record befoR it. BP A Region 6 has determined that Oklahoma's total 

phosphorus criterion :tOr its Scenil: Riven is couistent with the requirements :tOr water quality 

standards established under the Oeau Water Ar.t (CW A). BPA also believes 1hattbe CQillpliance 

scbedule provision, which was incbJded as a modific:ation to the numerical phosphorus criterion, 

represents a reasonable approach to addte51iug the phosphorus problem in Oklabc:ma's Sceoi.c 

Rivers, by allowing dischargers additional lime, if needed, to come into compliance mth penn it 

limits based on the criterion. 

I would like to commend the bard work aud efforts put forth by the Oklahoma Waler 

Resources Board (OWRB) audits staff in the preparation of the interim nwision packa&e and in 

addressing many oftbe previously disapproved revisions to the State's -«quality standards. 

We anticipate walking mlh you to RSolve the remaining issues, and to bring the Oklahoma 

Wa1er Quality Standards into full compliance with the CW A 

Section 303( c:) of the Clean Waler Act requires EPA to review and approve or disapprove 

new orrevised warecquality standards. In today's action, EPA is approving the~orily of the 

new and revised elements oftbese standards pursuant to the CW A and the federal implementing 

regulations at 40 CPR Part 13 I; however, EPA is disapproving four new and revised provisions 

that are inconsistent witb the requirements of !be CWA and its implementing regulations. EPA 

believes that no federal action is required on one provision beca11se it is not a "water quality 

standard" for purposes of the Clean Water Ac:t. A detailed explanation of the basis for EPA's 

decision is enclosed. 
522 

EPAiDitiated consultation with the U.S. FJShmd Wildlife Servi<:e under sec;tion 7{aX2) 

of the ESA on the Oklahoma water quality standards on November 21, 2002. Se<:tion 7(a)(2) 

requires that federal agencies, in consultation with the Services, ensure that their ~<:lions are not 

· likely to jcopantize the exi.stence of fedenlly listed species or reallt in the adverse modification 

of designated critital habitat of such species. It is EPA's finding that approval of these standards 

revisiollS will have no dm;t on endangeredlthreatened species or critical habitat. 

This letter constitutes OW' formal notifi.Qtion of the results ofEPA's water quality 

standards review punullllt to 40 CFR § 131.22. The State is advised of the requhement to adopt 

replacement water quality standards for OAC Title 785, Cbapter 45, consistent with the CW A 

BDd federal regulations within 90 days of the RCeipt of this letter. In the event the State does not 

tab appropriate action, EPA will propose replacement water quality standards fOI' Oklahoma 

pursuant to Seetioo 303(cX4) of the CWA and its implementing regulalions at 40 CFRPart 131. 

Ifyou have any questions or concerns, please contact me at (214) 665-7101 or Jane 

Watsonat(214) 665-7135. 

Enclosure 

Sincerely, 

m G(~.L f=~ (J Water Quality Protection Division 

cc: Fred Luetner, Office ofScience and Technology 

Susau Lepow, Office of General Counsel 

Jcny Brabaoder, U.S. FISh aad Wildlife Service 

Derek Smithee, OWRB 

Jon Craig, ODEQ 

2 
523 

SUMMARY OF DECISION 

EPA ActiooJ ou the July l, 2002 RevisioDJ to the Oklahoma Water Quality Standardl 

SUBCHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 

OAC 785:45-l·l, Defialtioas • 

In the definitions seetit:m, prior to the initial de&ition, a S1atementisincludeddirectingthe 

reader to use the foHowiDg definilioos UDless the contentcleady indicates otherwise. Oklahoma 

Weier Resources Board (OWRB) bas since determined the word "content" was intended to be 

"context" and has made the substitutian. 

Action: EPA approves the d!ange. 

"Acute test failure" -The OWRB bas revised the two definitions, one pertaining to lakes and 

the other pertaining to streams, to retul'll to the 1anguaae previously in plac:c prior to the adoptioo 

of an "acute mixinJ zone." Subsequent to adoption of the acute mixing zone it was detennined 

that tbeimplcmenta1ion af'the aCUIIl mixing zone was problematic. To prevent p!Wlems in the 

implementation and issuance of Oklahoma Pollutant Discharge Blimiuation System permits, the 

OWRB decided to return the definition of acute toXicity to the same defiuition used pteYiously. 

Action: EPA approves the change. 

"Aeute toxicity" -The OWRB has revised the definition of acute toxicity to mirror the endpoint 

described in the definition of acute test failure. 

Actiou: EPA approves the change. 

"Best Available Teduaology" ·The OWRB has adopted a definition of Best Available 

Technology, which is not substantially diffilrent from the federal definition. Although the new 

dotinition is not written in the exact words as the federal dSD!ition, it is acceptable. 

Action: EPA approves the change. 

"Conservative .Eiemeat" - The OWRB baa made a spelling change to correct "volatilization." 

Action: EPA approves the change. 

"Dep'lldatiun"- The OWRB bas made a chause to the definition to reflect the applicability to 

activities of humans which result in the prolonged impairment of a water body. 

Aetion: EPA approves the change. 
524 

"EPA."- The OWRB has several rcfermces witbin the codified water quality standards, 

implementation procedures and various state policies, guidance and notices to the acronym EPA 

With this definition, the OWRB has provided clarification as to the organization to which the 

aaonym refers. 

A.ction: EPA approves the change. 

"Feeal coUfonu" • The OWRB bas provided a clarification that all humans, not only man, 

contribute kl;al coliform bacteria. 

Action: EPA approves the change. 

"Fresh groaadwater" - The OWRB has revised the definition of'ftesh groundwater to double 

the concentration r:K total dissolved ,olids. Region 6 is concerned that the detirlition may be 

misleading to many lay people who may consider "fresh groundwater" to mean groundwater of 

higher quality, not to include contaminated groundwater. However, this defirlition is outside of· 

the water quality standards programs and not subject to action by EPA Region 6 under Ibis 

review. 

Action: EPA Region 6's Water Quality Standards Program has no authority over 

groundwater issues that are unrelated to surface water, and thus cannot approve or 

disapprove of the change. 

"MDL"- The OWRB has adopted the industry standard (and EPA's) definition of and acronym 

for method detection limit. 

Action: EPA approves the cbange. 

"Natural source"- The OWRB has provided a clarification that all humans, not only man, may 

be a source of COlltamination. 

Actioa: EPA approves the change. 

"NTU" - The OWRB has included the acronym md delin.ition fa-nephelomeUic tutbidity units 

which is used to report results from the Nephelometric Method, commonly used to measure the 

scattering of light by particles in a water sample. 

Action: EPA approves the change. 

"PQL" - The OWRB has adopted a definition and acronym for practical quantitation limit, 

which is five times the MDL. BP A objected to this definition and provided comments to d:le 

OWRB concerning the applicabili!y ofPQL to tests such as dissolved oxygen, pH and B.O.D.s. 

Because these regulations use the term "PQL" solely for regulating groundwater, EPA Region 6 

2 
525 

does nat consider this tcnn to be applicable to the water quality standards program as it relates to 

surface watenl, including wetlands. 

Action: EPA Region 6's Water Quality Standards Program bas no authority over 

groundwater i550es that are umdated to surliwe water, and thus CIIIIIIOt approve or 

disapprove the ehan&e. 

"SaUnity" - The OWRB ha.s cbaDged the definition to correctly reflect salinity as a measurement 

of concentration and nat degrees. 

Action: EPA approves the cl!aoge. 

"Seasonal sevea-day, two-year low flow" - The OWRB ha.s c:baoged this definition 

substantially by deleting the description of bow the low tlow is calculated and by referring to the 

use of the low tlow in pennitting. B~ the new definition does not describe the precise 

meaning of low tlows, there is possible confusion about whether the ftows are calculated on the 

receiviog stream'stlow or the efD.uentflow. The latter would be inappropriate becauselowftow 

conditions are used in penni.tting and site-!pOcific criteria development as a gauge of the dilution 

attnbutable to a wateroody during critical conditions, i.e., usually the middle to eod of the 

summer months. 

Action: EPA disapproves the change. 

To correct the disapproval OWRB tDUIIt adopt a detinitioo which clearly refers to 

receivingwatt:r, nat effluent ftow, or reinstate the prmous definition. 

"Seuonai7Q2" - Same as above. 

Action; EPA disapproves the cbange. 

To correct the disapproval OWRB must adopt a deJinitioo which clearly refers to 

receiving water, nat eftluent flow, or reinstate the prmous definition. 

"Sev-.:lay, two-year low flow" - Same as above. 

Action: EPA disapproves the change. 

To correct the disapproval OWRB must adopt a definition which clearly refers to 

receiving water, not eftlut:Dt tlow, or ninstate the previous cldinition. 

"7QJ" -Same as above. 

Aetion: EPA disapproves the change. 

To correct the disapproval OWRB must adopt a definition which clearly refers to 

receiving water, not efiluent flow, or reinstate the previous definition. 

3 
526 

"Standard Methods" • The OWRB bas added as a defulition the common phrase used to 

describe the publkati.onStantlardMethodajor the Examination ojWater and Wastewater, an 

industry publi<:ation referenced by BP A and all Region 6 states, concernins both the drinking 

water program and the water quality standards program. 

Action: EPA approves the change. 

OAC 785:4!-1-4. Testing procedures 

The OWRB has made cbanges to ntlect thetilular nature of the reference to 40 CFR. Part 136. 

Action: EPA approves the chanp. 

OAC 785:4!-5-3, Beaefldal UHIII: default desigoatioas 

b) Lakes. (2) ·This provision establishes a beneficial use ofPublie and Private Water Supplies 

to be desigoated for certain lakes as provided in Appendix A ofthis Chapter. OWRB has 

removed " otherwise" which followed "Chapter" in the sentence noted above. 

Action: EPA approves the cban&e. 

OAC 785:45-5-4, AppticabWty of narrative and numerical criteria 

(a) The OWRB bas added the clause "or establishing site specific aiteria" to the applli;abillty of 

using the greater of 1.0 cfs or 7Q2 as the streamflow used in establishing ''pemlit wnditions," 

unless otherwise provided in OAC 785:45 or OAC 785:46. These changes are consistent with 

other aspects of the water quality standards. 

Action: EPA approves the change. 

(e)- The OWRB has revised the references to the numeric: aiteria for human health protection 

from fish flesh consumption alone or with illgestion of water as related to water wlumn or fish 

tissue concentratiOII! to reflect the Idocation of the aiteria 10 Appeodix G. 

Action: EPA approves the dlange. 

PART 3. BENEFICIAL USES AND CJUTERIA TO PROTECT USES 

OAC:785:45-5-IO. Public and private water supplies 

(1) Raw Water numerical criteria. 

The OWRB bas revised this section to redeet the relocation of the aiteria to Appendix 0. 

Action: EPA approves the change. 

4 
527 

(6) Water Col~amn criteria to protect tor the consumption offish ftesb ud water. 

The OWRB has revised this sec:lim to reflect the relocationoftheaiteriato Apperutix G. 

Action: BP A approves the change. 

OAC:785:45-5-11 Fisb aad wDcUife propaptioo 

(f)( I )(C) - The OWRB has revised this section to reflect the ~ocation of the criteria to 

Appendix G. 

Action: EPA approves the cbaoge. 

(f)(6)(C}- TheOWRB bas revised this section to reflectthereloc:ationoftheaiteria to 

Appendix G. 

Action: .EPA approves the change. 

(f)(6)(D) - The OWRB has revised this section to reflect the relotation oftbe criteria to 

Appendix G. 

Action: EPA approves the change. 

(f)(6)(G) • The OWRB has revised this sec:1ion to retlect the relocation of the criteria to 

Appendix G. 

Action: EPA approves the change. 

(f)(6)(G)(i) - The OWRB bas revised this section to rcftect the relocation of the aittria to 

Appendix G. 

Actioo: EPA approves the change. 

(f)(6)(G)('d)- The OWRB has revised this section to ret1ect~ relocation of the criteria to 

Appendix G. 

Action: EPA approves the change. 

(f)(6)(H) - The OWRB has revised this section to reflect the relocation of the c:riteria and 

conversion facton to Appendix G. 

Action: EPA approves the change. 

5 
528 

(f)(7)(A)(i)- The OWRB baa substituted the acn:wrym for the actual name of nephelometric 

turbidity units (NTUs), the nephelometric measurement fur turbidity. 

Ac:tioa: EPA approves the change. 

(f)(7)(A)(ii) - The OWRB has substituted the acronym for the actual name ofnepbclometric 

tmbidity units (NTUs), the nephelometric measurement for twbidity. 

Aetion: EPA approves the change. 

(f)(7)(A)(W)- The OWRB has substituted the acronym for the actual name of nephelometric 

twbidity units (NTUs), the nephelometric measurement for turbidity. 

Action: EPA approves the change. 

(f)(7)(C)- The OWRB has changed thereferencefrmn criteria listed "above" to criteria listed 

"in (A) of this paragraph" to prevent contusion. 

Aetion: EPA approves the change. 

(t)(7)(E) - The OWRB has eliminated Ibis provision and added the language that defines N11Js 

as a de1inition in OAC:78S:4S-1-2. 

Aetio•u EPA approves the change. 

OAC:785:45-5-13 Agriculture: livestock and irrigation 

(d) • The OWRB is changina a citatim fum "the table foUowing subsection (g) of this Section 

and 785-1-2 calculated for that &egD1eut" to "the table in Appendix F of this Chapter". 

Action: BP A approves the change. 

0AC;785:45-5-16 Primary Body Contact Reereation 

(c)(2)- The OWRB has added the tenns "body contact" to tbis subsection when rcfetring to 

prinwy recreation, which is COIIsistent with the previously adopted language and OWRB's 

description of primary recreation. 

Action: EPA approves the change. 

6 
529 

(c)(3)- The OWRB bas added the terms "body contact" to this subsection when tef'ening to 

primary recreation. See above. 

Action: EPA approves the change. 

0AC:785:45-5-19 Aesdledcs 

(a)- The OWRB has revised the language in this subsa:tion from "water of the State" to 

''waters of the state". 

Action: EPA approves the change. 

(c)(l) Color.- The OWRBhas changed the term "State" to"state". 

Action: EPA approves the change. 

(cXl) Nutrients.-

(A) Narrative criterion applicable to all waters of the state. The OWRB has revised this 

subsection to identil)r that the in-place narrative criterion is applicable to all waters of tbe state. 

Adion: EPA approves the change. 

(B)· Numerical criterion applicable to waters designated SceDic Rivers. Through revisions 

to Section 785:45-S-19 of the Oklahoma Adminisuati~ Code (OAC), OWRB has adopted a 

nutrient criterion for total phosphorus of0.037 mgiL for aU Oklahoma water bodies designated as 

Scenic Rivers. Attainment will be based on the thirty (30) day geometric mean total phosphorus 

concentration in waters designated Scenic Rivers in Appendix A of Chapter 45. Additional 

language in the rule states that "such criterion shall be tUlly implemented within ten (1 0) years as 

provided in a separate rule promulgated by the Board." OAC § 785:4S-5-19(c)(2)(B). lhc 

separate rule promulgated by the Board is OAC Section 785:45-2-28, which at the time of the 

OWRB's submittal was an emergency rule effective May 6, 2002. The emergency rule was 

promulgated to claruy the July I, 2002, effective date of the 0.037 mg/L numerical criterion 

established by OAC Section 785:45·5-19 and the June 30, 2012, deadline for full implementation 

of the criterion 

OAC Sections 785:45-S-19 and 785:45-5-28 establish effective July 1, 2002, a numerical 

water quality standard for total phosphorus of0.037 mgiL for Oklahoma's six (6) Scenic Rivers, 

modified by a compliance schedule provision allowing point source dischargers up to ten (10) 

years from July 1, 2002, or until June 30, 2012, to come into compliance with efiluent limitations 

based on the numerical criterion. Once approved by EPA, the 0.037 mg/L standard is fully 

etfec;tive for CW A purposes. Compliance schedules will be available as needed not only for 

dischargers within Oklahoma, but for dischargers located in neighboring states as well. 

1 
530 

OWRB explained the need for a llUIIIerical phosphorus criterion for its Scenic Rivers in 

its water quality standards revision package. The agency stated that both empirical and anecdotal 

evidence over the past twenzy (20)yearsindicates that excess nutrients, primarily excess 

phosphorus, "are causing accelerated primary productivizy in the 11linois, resulting in significant 

growths of both attached algae (periphyton) and suspended algae (phytoplankton). As a 

consequence, historical river clarizy and substrate quality are being adversely affected to such an 

extent that, without inte1Ven1ion, the Illinois River's exceptional ecological and n:crealional 

siguific:ance is in jeopardy." Justifjcatign for Reyisions to Oklahoma's Water OuaJiw Standards 

OAC 785:45: Rationale for Promulgation of an 0.037 mg4. Total Phosphorus Criteria for Scenic 

River Protection. Page 1 of Tab 11 to OWRB's November 6, 2002, submittal. OWRB noted 

that, although less pronounced and obvious to the public, similar signs of adverse impacts from 

excess nutrients had been noted in Oklahoma's other five (5) Scenic Rivers. !!L Page I. 

Adoption of nutrient criteria by the State of Oklahoma is consistent with EPA's Notice of 

National Strategy for Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria, published in the Federal 

Register of June 25, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 122, pages 34648-64650). EPA expects all 

States and Tn"bes to adopt and implement numerical nutrient criteria into their water quality 

standards by December 31, 2003. 

The OWRB cited as the basis for justification ofits 0.037 mg/L total phosphorus criterion 

the United States Geological Survey (USGS) study and report, NJJITient Concentrations and 

Yields in UndevelopedBasin.f ofthe lfn/Jed States. In the report sumrnaxy statistics were 

~culated for percentile values (10%, 25%, 50";0, 75%, and 90"/o) of the flow-weighted mean 

stream values for several nutrient descriptors, including total phosphorus. OWRB adopted a total 

phosphorus concentration, based on the values included in the report as Table 1, of0.037 mgfl.. 

representing the 75., percentile value of undeveloped streams, analogO\lli to the methodology 

sanctioned by EPA in developing its recommended ecoregion based nutrient criteria. except that 

it is not tailored to any particular ecoregion norinclusi~ of data from the ecoregion to which it is 

applied. 

Under 40 CFR § 131.11, EPA has recommended three optionsfordevelopingnumeric 

nutrient criteria: I) based on 304(a) Guidance, or 2) based on 304{a) Guidance modified to 

reflect site-specific conditions, or 3) based on other scientifically defensible methods. The state 

utilized the third option, employing a method similar to the EPA methodology, but developed 

using a national database of reference (undeveloped or "least impacted") streams. EPA used 

ecoregion data for all streams and reference streams as the basis for nutrient criteria. If nutrient 

concentrations were considered for all streams in an ecoregion, EPA selected the 25., percentile 

value for the criterion value. If nutrient concentrations were used from only reference streams, 

the 7511J percentile value was chosen. Considerl.ng undeveloped watersheds as analogous to 

reference streams, EPA would expect, as the OWRB did, to adopt a criterion using the 75 .. 

percentile value. 

8 
531 

Portions of the six OklahoiJUI Scenic Rivers are included in the five Level m ecoregions 

that were utilized by EPA in development of the national recommended nutrient criteria. For 

these five ecorcgions, the range of the recommended criteria was from O.OOS mg/L to O.OS mg/L 

[EPA-822-B-00-019, EPA-822-B-00-020] Oklahoma's adopted criteria of0.037 mgiLfalls 

within the lllllge recommended. 

It is important to note that EPA reviews a state water quality criterion to determine 

whether 1he proposed standards are stringent enough to comply with the requirements of the 

CWA and meet the states' designated uses. States are free to adopt a water quality criterion that 

is more .stringent than necessal)' to comply with the rnioimum requirements of the CW A. The 

CW A allows states to force tc:clmological advancement to attain higher water quality through the 

enactment of stringent water quality goals. See Citv ofAibuquergus v Browner. 97 F.lrd 41 S 

(IO"' Cir. 1996). Based on the record before it, EPA bas determined that Oklahoma's total 

phosphoTUs criterion of0.037 mg/L for its Scenic Rivers is sufficient to protect the designated 

uses of the affected rivers' and is consistent with the requirements for water quality standards 

established by the CW A and 40 CFR Part 131. 

To address whether the outcome of Oklahoma's analysis is representative, scientifically 

defensible, and protective of Oklahoma's waters, EPA independen11y considered several other 

sources of data and information. One important source ofiDformatioo was a USGS report 

entitled Percentile Distributions af Medi011 Nitrile Plus Nitrate a~ Nitrogen, Total Nitrogen, 011d 

Total Phosph~· Concentrations in 0/dohoma Streams, 1973-ZOOI (Report 03-4084). This 

:teport included total phosphorus data for streams in the Ozark Highlands ecoregion. The 

appropriate percentile values of median concentrations for various stream groups fully >lupport 

Oklahoma's adopted criterion value. The 751h percentile of high gradient smaller streams (stream 

orders I, 2 and 3), where data may be more representative of reference quality cooditioos and the 

effects of human development activities are likely to be minimal, is 0.040 mg/L. The zslh 

percentile of low gradient smaller streams and all larger streams (stream order 4 and above), 

where data are likely to be more representative of general conditions and the effects of human 

development activities are likely more than minima~ is 0.035 mgiL and 0.050 mg!L, 

respectively. These reported values corroborate that Oklahoma's adopted criterion is 

scientifically defensible and protective. In a separate amlysis, USGS, in conjunction with EPA 

Region 6, calculated percentiles for different stream sizes in the Ulinois basin using data 

collected from 1990 to 2001. The data indicated that small streams have lower criteria than 

larger ones if calculated separately, and that when various stream sizes are combined, the 

criterion is consistent with that adopted by the state. 

1 A December 9, 2003, letter from the Arkansas Attorney General's Office raised the issue 

of how different uses of a stream should be considered. Thatissue relates to use designations, 

not to the question of whether a criterion is protective of a given designated use. Today's 

approval concerns a criterion, not a designation of use. 

9 
532 

Because, as noted above, Oklahoma's 0.037 mgiL criterion for total phosphorus in its 

Scenic Rivers is modified by a compliance schedule provision allowing point source dischargers 

up to ten (lO) years from July 1, 2002, or until June30, 2012, to come into compliance with 

permit limits based on the criterion, EPA must review not only the nwneri.cal criterion, but the 

compliance schedule provision as well to ensure consistency with the CW A and its implementing 

regulations. Regulations at 40 CFR § 122.47 provide for CW A schedules of compliance for 

NPDES permit limitations reflectiog water quality standards when appropriate, but mandate that 

such schedules require compliance with the limitations as soon as possible. 

Further work remains to be done to support implementation of Oklahoma's 0.037 mg/L 

phosphorus criterion. TMDLs have not been completed and neither the regulatory authorities nor 

the point sources themselves have all the data necessai)' to fully understand the exact nature and 

location of all phosphorus loadings to the watersheds or what the appropriate loadings for every 

individual discharger should be. Experts are still discussing the appropriate phosphorus index to 

be used, as well as the best approach for removing existing excess phosphorus. Putling the final 

pieces of this puzzle in place will take time, aod even after tina! decisions are made regarding 

appropriate loadings for all dischargers, the cost of implementing necessa.ty treatment or other 

controls may be bigh. Given the canplexity of the issue, the amount of data yet to be gathered 

and the costs involved, EPA believes the compliance schedule provision included by OWRB as a 

modification to its nwnerical phosphorus criterion augments rather than undercuts the 

0.037 mgiL standard by allowing dischargers the additional time to comply if it is needed. 

In implementing this compliance schedule provision, Oklahoma, in conjunction wlth the 

State of Arkansas2 

.• has arrived at a tiered approach to addressing the problem of excess 

phosphorus in Oklahoma's Scenic Rivers. Under this tiered approach, the r:Kisting point source 

dischargers to the shared Oklahoma Scenic Rivers watersheds with a design capacity of greater 

than I million gallons per day (MGD), specifically the cities of Fayetteville, Rogers, Springdale, 

Siloam Springs and BentonviDe, Arkansas, will be issued NPDES permits containing an effluent 

limit for total phosphorus of 1 mg!L pursuant to the schedule of compliance set out bel ow. The 

city ofTahlequab, Oklahoma al.ready meets this limit pursuant to an NPDES permit issued in 

1992. Jn addition, the city ofWestville, Oklahoma has a permitted design capacity of 

0.28 MGD, however, it is under a compliance order to achieve a I m!VL phosphorus effluent limit 

and a2.34lblday pho5phorus loading limit by 2004. EPA believes such limits are allowable 

under Oklahoma's 0.037 mg/L phosphorus criterion as modified by the compliance schedule. 

3

Five of the six Scenic Rivers currently affected by Oklahoma's 0.037 mgll criterion for 

total phosphorus flow from Arkansas into Oklahoma and Arkansas has a number of point and 

non point source dischargers to the Oklahoma/ Arkansas shared Scenic Rivers watersheds. 

10 
533 

Schedule for large cities to complv with 1 mg!L effluent 1imit: 

Rogers-to meet I mg!L limit starting in 2004 

Springdale- expansion to meet 1 mgiL limit starting in 2007 

Siloam Springs- expansion to meet 1 mgiL limit starting in 2009 

Fayetteville -existing facility already complies; .new facility to meet I mg/L limit once 

operational (circa 2005) 

Bentonville- new facility to meet 1 mg/L limit once operational (date unknown) 

In addition, the States of Oklahoma and Arkansas will work aggressively with those 

Arlcansas and Olclahoma e.nliUes with existing design capacities of less than 1 MGD but greater 

than or equal to 0.5 MGD to reduce the level of phosphorus in tbeir discharges to the maximum 

extent possible through voluntary controls aimed at reaching either I mg/L total phosphorus or a 

phosphorus Joadiog limit based on 1 MGD of flow and an effluent concentration of 1 mgiL total 

phosphorus. The intent to implement these limits and controls is memorialized in a "Statement 

of Joint Principles and Actions" signed by the Oklahoma Secretary of Environment, the 

Oklahoma Water Resources Board, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, the 

Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission, the Arkansas Department ofEnviromnental Quality and 

the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission on December 18, 2003. 

EPA believes the commitments made by the States of Oklahoma and Arkansas, acting 

through their environmental agencies. and as refiected in the Statement of Joint Principles and 

Actions signed by those agencies on December 18, 2003, represent very positive steps toward 

improving water quality in the shared Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Watersheds, which is consistent 

with achieving compliance with the State of Oklahoma's 0,037 mg/L criterion for total 

pbo5phorus in that State's Scenic Rivers. 

At this time, and in light of the other phosphorus reducing measures currently being 

implemented, and to be implemented, in the affected waterways (as discussed below}, EPA 

supports the decision made by Oklahoma and Arkansas to allow the point source dischargers 

covered by the Statement of Joiut Principles and Actions to initially reduce their effiuent 

concentrations through pennit limits of I mgiL total phosphorus or through voluntary measures. 

Considering loadings to the affected watershed are greatly affected by non point source 

discharges (likely greater than SO% of the phosphorus loading) and because measures are 

undetWay to reduce those non point source loadings, EPA believes it is reasonable to limit the 

specified point source dischargers as agreed to i.n that Ibis should result in reasonable further 

progress toward achieving the 0.037 mgiL instream goal by the June 30, 2012, deadline. 

EPA believes the tiered approach to implementing Oklahoma's proposed compliance 

schedule provision, including the implementation of the above discussed measures, is a 

reasonable approach to beginning to address the phosphorus probbm iu Oklahoma's Scenic 

Rivers and to achieving water quality goals. EPA expects reasonable further progress in meeting 

water quality goals if the specilied measures are put in place. Preliminary estimates made by 

11 
534 

researchers at the University of Arkansas indicate that four major point source dischargers in the 

Ulinois River Drainage Area, identified in Nelson ct. aL (2002}3

, account for about 40"/o of the 

output ofphosphotus in the Illinois River just upstream of the river's flow into Oklahoma, where 

the criterion is applicable. These same estimates indicate that reductions in the phosphorus 

concentration of their discharges to 1.0 ntgiL as a sole measure would likely reduce 

concentrations in the Illinois River as it enters Oklahoma by 30"/o. 

The tiered approach toward achieving water quality goals is bolstered by the 

implementation ofvarious other measures aimed at further reducing phosphorus in the affected 

watersheds by Oklahoma, as well as neighboring States. These measures include a comminnent 

by the Oklahoma Secretary of the Environment, the Oklahoma Attorney General, the Arkansas 

Department of Environmental Quality and the Arkansas Soil & Water Conservation Commission 

to develop a joint phosphorus index between the States of Oklahoma and Arkansas. This 

commitment was retlected in a letter dated April4, 2003, fi-orn those four entities to Oklahoma 

State University and the University of Arkansas, requesting technical assistance from the two 

universities in crafting an appropriate index. With regard to nonpoint sources, the State of 

Arkansas recently enacled legislation declaring certain areas, including the lllinois ruver 

Watershed, to be nutrient surplllS areas for phosphorus and nitrogen. The new legislation makes 

it a violation of State law to apply designated nutrients within a nutrient surplus area except in 

compliance with a State approved nutrient management plan or at a protective rate established by 

the State. Arkansas also enacted legislation requiring the certification of persons preparing 

nutrient management plans and of persons making nutrient application, a.s well as legislation 

mandating the establishment of an annual registration program to assemble and maintain 

information on the number, composition, and practices of poulny feeding operations in the Swe, 

including the land application practices used by each illrlividual poultry feeding operation, and 

the amount oflitter stored, applied and tnmsferred by each operation. EPA expects substantial 

progress will resuh from the nonpoint measures stemming from this Arkansas enabling 

legislation. For example, reducing by half the application of attimal manure, litter and sludge in 

the Illinois River Drainage Area in favor of nitrogen fertilizer, in concert with the point source 

controls, could achieve a 60"/o reduction in phosphoTilS concentrations in the Dlinois River. 

1n addition to the other measures discussed, there will be actions internal to both 

Oklahoma and neighboring States as they work to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads 

(TMDLs) or Watershed Plans for streams listed as impaired on the federal CWA 303(d) list. 

EPA believes implementation of these various measures, in conjunction with the phosphorus 

reductions ultimately achieved by the point source discllargcrs to the affected watersheds, should 

ensure reasonable and steady progress toward meeting the 0.037 mg/L instream goal by the 

June 30, 2012, deadline for compliance provided by OWRB. 

3

Reference; Nelson, M. A, K. L. White, and T. S. Soerens. 2002. Dlinais River 

phosphorus sampling results and mass balance computation. Proceedings from Arkansas Water 

Resources Center Conference on ~Adequate Quality Water Supplies to Meet Our Growing 

Needs: Scientific, Regulatory, and Public Perspectives", Fayetteville, AR. 

12 
535 

As a result, EPA believes not only that the compliance schedule provision included by 

OWRB as a modification to its numerical phosphorus criterion augments rather than undercuts 

the 0.037 mgiL standard by allowing dischargers additional1ime, if needed, to come into 

compliance with permit limits based on the criterion, but also that the tiered approach toward 

implementation of the numerical criterion as modified by the compliance schedule provision 

adopted by Oklahoma is a reasonable approach to addressing the phosphorus problem in 

Oklahoma's Scenic Rivers and ultimately achieving compliance with the 0.037 mgll.. phosphorus 

standard. 

Although EPA believes this tiered approach, including the limits and controls to be met 

by point source dischargers to the shared Oklahoma Scenic Rivers watersheds, is a reasonable 

approach to achieving water quality goals, EPA realizes the success of the approach is dependent 

on many inter-related factors. EPA will be monitoring the situation over the course of the 

compliance period to ensure that sufficient progress toward achieving these goals by the 

June 30, 2012, deadline is indeed being made. 

Action: EPA has determined a numerical criterion for total phosphorus of 0.037 mg/L 

for Oklahoma Scenic Rivers, modified by a provision for compliance schedules of up to 

ten (10) years from July 1, 2002, or until JUJle 30, 2012, as needed to attain compliance as 

soon as posstble with effluent limitations reflecting the numerical criterion, is consistent 

with the requirements for water quality standards established by the CWA and 40 CFR 

Part 131. EPA approves the change. 

OAC:785:45-5-20, Fisb Consumption 

(a) General. The OWRB has revised this subsection to reflect the relocation of the criteria ftom 

the individual subsections to the tables in Appendix G. 

Action: EPA approves the change. 

(b) Water column criteria to protect for the consumption offiSh flesb. lhe OWRB has 

revised this subsection to reflect the relocation of the aiteria from the individual subsections to 

the tables in Appendix G. 

Action: EPA approves the change. 

PARTS. SPECIAL PROVISIONS 

OAC:78S:45-5-25(d). Implementation Policies for the Antidegradation Polley Statement, 

As discussed above, through revisions to Sections 785:45-5-19 and 785:45-5-28 of the 

Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC), the OWRB has adopted a thirty (30) day geometric 

mean total phosphorus criterion of 0.037 mg/L applicable to all water bodies designated as 

"Scenic Rivers" moditled by a provision allowing for compliance schedules of up to ten (I 0) 

]3 
536 

years from July I, 2002, for discl!argers to come into compliance with regulatory limitations 

necessary for instrcam achievement of that criterion. The OWRB has also revised OAC Section 

785:45-5-25 (d) to incorporate the same crlteri on and compliance schedule in the State's 

Antidcgradation Policy Statement. 

EPA's review of implementation procedures is limited to ensuring that procedures are 

included that describe how the State will implement the required elements of the antidegradation 

review. ·The EPA is approving the adoption of the criterion and compliance schedule in OAC 

Sections 785;45·5·19 and 785:45-5-28. However, we Bnd the procedures in this provision do 

not specifY how the State wtll detelilline on a case-by-case basis whether, and to what extent. 

assimilative capacity in the States water$ may be preserved or used. Specifically, if a water body 

has a lower total phosphorous eoncemra.tion than established by the criterion, water quality may 

be lowered to that level, effectively cirrumventing the intent and purpose of the anti degradation 

policy. 

Given the qualifying statement that it "applies in addition to, and shall be construed so as 

to be consistent with, any other provision of this chapter," and appropriate inclusion of the same 

criterion and compliance schedule provision elsewhere in the standards, EPA regards Section 

785:45·5-25(d) as conceptually foreign to an antidegradation policy as that tenn is understood 

under the Clean Water Act. As such, OAC Section 785;45-5-25(d) is not a "water qualil)' 

standard" at all and CWA Section 303(cX3) does not require EPA to either approve or 

disapprove it. 

Action: This provision in the State's regulation is not "a water quality standardn for 

purposes of the Clean Water Act, and, does not require EPA action. 

Appendix A 

DF§IGNAIED BENEFICIAL USE$ FOR SURfACE WATER§ 

OAC:78!5:45 APPENDIX A 

(b) Beneficial Use Designations. OWRB has clarified the use ofa (•) to indicate the inclusion 

of the beneficial usc. represented by the colwnn wherein the use is specified, for a segment or 

waterbody. 

Action: EPA approves the change. 

Garland Creek, Segment No. 410100 

OWRB has revised the bcne:ficial uses for Garland Creek to return the bene:ficial uses previously 

designated for Garland Creek. In March, 2000 EPA Region 6 disapproved the change in the 

beneficial use designation from warm water aquatic community to habitat limited aquatic 

community. Subsequent studies determined that Garland Creek was not habitat limited and the 

14 
537 

OWRB is now correcting that decision to reflect the expectation that Garland Creek should 

provide adequate habitat to support a wann water aquatic community. 

Action: EPA approves of the change. 

Mine Creek, Segment No. 410210 

OWRB is correcting an omission from a previous water quality standards revision. In this 

correction OWRB is incorporating a beneficial use designation of aesthetics, as previously 

determined, but omitted from the previous revision. 

Action: EPA approves of the revision. 

AooendixE 

Site-Svedfic Criteria for Copper on North Canadiap <OG&E) 

Region 6 has reviewed the document and additional infonnation submitted by OWRB and 

USGS. The site-specific criterion is acceptable as prepared in the water effect ratio document 

submitted by OG&E. 

Amon: EPA approves the change. 

15 
538 

Tyson Foods, Inc. 

February 26, 2013 

Mr. Ron Curry 

USEPA Region 6 Administrator 

14SS Rou Ave. Suite 1200 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

Dear Mr. Curry, 

Thank you for meeting With my colleagues and me during our recent visit to Region 6 to discuss 

mutual opportunities for engagement to enhance the on-going environmental stewardship efforts 

of Tyson Foods, Inc. We were pleased to engase a broad range of topics including environmental 

management systems, community engagement, environmental justice, and the A£ency's current 

focus on developing a Total Maximum Dafty Load (TMDL) for the Illinois River In Oklahoma. 

You may have heard by now of the February 20 agreement by Arkansas and Oklahoma officials to, 

jointly conduct a comprehensive study of phosphorous concentrations and Impacts in the Illinois 

River watershed. In short, in the interest of Improving water quality In the resion, a "Second 

Statement of Joint Principles and Actions" have been developed as a framework for advancing 

phosphorous science throush a stressor response study to be conducted over the next thnee 

years. The study will be overseen by a six member committee, three members selected by the 

governors of each state, and perfonned by an independent vendor. Specifically, science will be 

used to detennine the relationship between in-stream phosphorus concentrations, algal 

production, temperature, flow, beneficial use, etc. This study could reaffirm the originai.037 

mg,ll standard or result In IJn entirely different standard being adopted. Compliance, however, 

with .037 ms/L has been suspended under this agreement until the study process is completed. 

In light of this new development, we urge Region 6 to consider placing its currentTMDL work on 

hold pending the outcome of the above-mentioned stressor response study. This would be a 

pragmatic move to save resources while awaiting the results of an important study that can only 

help the proper scientific outcome of the TMDl process. If the Agency moves ahead with 

Implementing a TMDL based upon .037 mg/L, it could result In costly changes in Arkansas that are 

ultimately deemed to have been unneceHary under the on-going study which could provide more 

asltdcall\• IOWM iRIIillf*l"'' tile flr<efleP flllwlelieA et !lhesphePeH!. 

In conclusion, the bi-state agreement has suspended the Implementation date of .037 during the 

term of the agreement. It only makes sense for the Agency to do the same. 

Tyson Foodo,lnc. 2200 Don Tyson Parkway Springdale, AR 72762-699\1 47\1-29tJ..IOOO www.ty,.>nfoociHnc.cotn 
539 

Tyson Foods, Inc. 

We would enjoy further conversation on this matter and would be happy to travel to Dallas in the 

near future to do so. 

Thank you again for your time and commitment to Improving our environment. 

:~~~fll SVP and Chief Environmental, Health & safety Officer 

Tvson Foods, Inc. 

T'yAon Foods, IlK'. 2200 Don Tysor~ Parkway Springdale, AR 12762-6999 Ji9-290-IOOO www.ty$<tnfClt'lld...~inc.com 
540 

PROTECT FAf\IIILY FAR/VIS 

FRO/VI ONEROUS INTRUSION 

To those who think it unnecessary to amend the Oklahoma Constitution to afford protections to agriculture 

and farming, you need only look at how interference 

from out-of·state interests and the federal government 

haYe made it more difficult for the family farm to survive and 

thriYe. On the ballot this fall is State Question 7i7. which will 

SCOTT 

PRUITT 

Attorney ge11eral 

of Oklahoma 

present Oklahoma the opportunity to 

take significant steps to protect family 

farming and ranching operations in this 

state. 

President Ronald Reagan famously 

said. "The nine most terrifying words 

in the English language are: I'm from 

the government, and I'm here to help." 

Few people understand that pearl of 

wisdom more than Oklahoma farmers 

and ranchers. Fanners and ranchers 

routinely face burdensome and intrush·e 

rules from gO\·ernment r.egulators. These 

regulations often fail to achieve the 

stated health. safety and em·ironmental 

goals. Instead. the regulations are aimed 

at advancing a political agenda and accomplish nothing more 

than making the job of farming :md ranching more difficult and 

expensive. 

Just as harmful are out·of-stilte interests that seek to force 

Oklahoma farmers and ranchers to comply with the rules and 

regulations of other states to do bosiness. A farming law in 

California would forc-e Oklahoma farmers to comply with strict 

regulations on egg·laying hens to sell rheir products in California. That law is being challenged by Oklahoma and other states 

to protect the ability of farmers to sell their products in all 50 

states without fear of other states imposing burdensome new 

requirements. 

The family farm is an inrricate part of the fabric that makes 

up Oklahoma. Farming and ranching is a fickle and noble 

endeavor and requires resiliency and toughness- traits for 

which our state is known. But the reach is far bevond cultural. 

Agriculture in Oklahoma provides more than 208.ooo jobs and 

has an economic impact of 539.6 billion. Oklahoma farmers and 

ranchers are f~eding the world, prO\·iding us. with the safest, 

most secure. most abundant and affordable food supply. But 

that vtork is undermined and threatened by the constant barrage of unlawful and burdensome regulations. Current law is 

pro\ing insufficient to provide the necessary tools to protect 

the legacy of the family farm. 

Unless as a state we think it unnecessary to protect this essential part of our identity and unless we want to give up protecting this important part of our state's economy, Oklahomans 

should take nt.>eessary steps to protect farming and ranching 

from un!awfol reguhltions and intrusion into the operations of 

family farms and ranches. 

The founders of our state recognized the importance of agriculture to the future success of Oklahoma. To protect farming 

and ranching from unfair competition, Article l. Section 31 of 

the Oklahoma Constitution prohibits the state from engaging 

in agriculture. except for educational or scientific purposes. 

Article 13, Section i instructs the Legislature to provide for 

the teaching of a.._viculture in public schools. And Article 6. 

SEEFOR110 

THIS DOG WON'T HUNT 

THE CASE AGAINST SO 777 

0 n the ballot this l'\0\·ember is a measure that is not 

needed, is poorly written and carries in its wording 

the potential for creating great harm. State Question 

7i7. the so~called "Right to Farm" measur~. might better be labeled 666, the "Right to Harm." 

This measure amends Article 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution. which is our Bill of Rights. by adding a new right; ''The Legislature shall 

pass no law which abridges the right of 

citizens and !awful residents of Oklahoma to employ agriculrural technology 

and livestock production and ranching 

practices \Vithout a compelling state 

interest." 

DREW te;~.o;;fse!l~:~;:~;:i~:t~~:s~:~~;s ~~~! EDMONDSON attached to measures that require "strict 

Former attorney 

general 

of Oklahoma, 

chairman of 

the Oklahoma 

Stewardship 

Council 

scrutiny," such as laws that discrimi~ 

nate on the basis of race or religion or 

restrict Yoting rights. You could consult 

law book~ on these terms or just Google 

them. The Legislature appt~rently did 

neither. 

This is important: Where a compelling 

state interest is required, any measure 

passed by the Legislature or a municipality or by a vote of the people, pertaining to agriculture, would 

be presumed to be unconstitutional. It also applies to municipalities because the next paragraph of the measure refers to 

ordinances, and SQ 777 creates a constitutionnl protection for 

agriculrure. If the state cannot ''iolate it. neither could a city or 

a county. 

For the Ia\\' or ordinance or zoning regulation to be upheld, 

its defenders must not only pro\'e a compelling state interest. 

they must also prove that no less r~trictive means would ac· 

complish the purpose. This is a very hea\'}', \'irtually impossible 

burden. 

By contrast, the vast majority oflegislarive enacnnents, if 

challenged in court. are (l) presumed to be constitutional, and 

(2) must only show a "legitimate" state interest, not "compelling," and (3) must be rationally related to meeting that interest. 

Oklahoma passed a la"v several years ago banning the culth·arion of castor plants, grO\vn and sold as decorative plants 

for yards. The rationale for the law was that ricin. a chemical 

that can be used by terrorists. might be manufacrured from the 

beans of this plant. Based on my 16 years of reviewing statutes 

as attorney general, it is my opinion that this statute would not 

have su["'.i,·ed lawsuits if7i7 had been on the books. 

More important, new protections to prevent waste from 

massive hog and chicken farms nmning into our waters could 

be challenged and thrown out. If Oklahoma abandons its ability 

to pass rea5onable laws regulating agriculture and pJ'otecting 

the environment, we would see more federal involvement from 

the EPA and other agencies in these areas, not less. 

Nothing in 777 would prevent the Legislature from repealing 

measures to protect our waters or land. as W'as done in North 

Dakota after a similar measure passed in that state. And. if 

repealed, neither a future Legislature nor a \'Ote of the people 

could put them back. 

SEE AGAINST 110 

... 
541 
542 

FORFRO!v1109 

Section 3ln established a Board of Regents 

for agrict!ltural and mechanical schools and 

colleges. Our founders took these deliberate 

steps to promote and protect agriculture. 

The time has come for Oklahoma to build 

upon those protections for farming and 

ranching in Oklahoma. 

State Question 777 would afford Con.\1ti~ 

tutional guarantees to farmers and ranchers 

to engage in agricultural operations. It 

would also prohibit the Legislature fl·om 

passing l11ws obstructing the right to farm 

without a compelling state interest. The 

hyperbole has reached epic levels by those 

who oppose State Question 777. This ques~ 

tion is not an effort to empower corporate 

farms to operatf:' withotlt regulation in 

Oklahoma. Of the 80,100 farms in Oklahoma. more than 73.000 are family farming 

operations. State Question 777 doesn't end 

all regulation of farming o.nd ranching in 

Oklahoma, nor does it give farmers and 

ranchers a license to pollute. Farmers and 

ranchers are stewards of the land.; the\' haYe 

even· incentiYe to ensure the land and wa~ 

ter \~-ill he able w sustain future generations 

of farmers and ranchers. State Question 777 

simply protects the llbili[)' of fl.lmily f0.1rmers 

and ranchers in Oklahoma to continue to 

do what they'\'e done for generations: feed 

the world. \\'hen mters go to the polls in 

No\'ember, they should support State Ques~ 

tion 777 and protect the legacy of Oklahoma 

agriculture. 

AGAINST FRO!v1109 

"Agricultural technology" and "li\'estock 

production practices" are not defined in 

the measure and change with time. Arc we 

.so certain that no technology or prilctice. 

no new chemicals or generic modifications. 

no additives to feed or seed, will ewr be 

inYented that we might want to regulate 

or control? The backers of SQ 777 ask us to 

gi\'e up our right to do 100. 

Even the people, by initiati\'e pC>tition, 

could not enact reasonable regulations 

pertaining to the future practices of the 

agricultural industry. Nor would the legisla 

ture or the people be able to enact protec~ 

tions for small farm oper-ations against the 

predatory practices of the food processors 

and livestock collecth·es. 

In 2008. Oklahoma added to its Bill of 

Rights the right to hunt and fish but that 

was subject to "rea.<>onable regulation a~ 

prescribed by the Legislature and the Wildlife Conservation Commission." It receh·ed 

more than 80 percent of the \·ore. SQ 777 

says clearly by the compelling state interest 

standard it requires: "subject to no future 

reasonable regulation by the Legislature. 

municipalities or the people of this state." 

That absolute freedom to harm. enjoyed b) 

no other industrv or interest in the state, 

should be rejec;t~d. V0te "No" on 777. 
543 

1/1912017 Tulsa World endorsement Against State Question TT7- Tulsa World: Editorials 

Tulsa World endorsement: Agai':lst State Question 777 

By World's Editorial Writers I Posted: Sunday, October 2, 2016 12:00 am 

Both sides in the debate over State Question 777 - the socalled Right to Farm proposal- have been guilty of 

excesses in their arguments. 

The proponents have suggested that only a state 

constitutional measure could shield cherished rural values of 

decent working farmers from the meddling hands of 

bureaucrats and lunatic ceo-extremists. 

The opponents have claimed that, were the measure to pass, 

almost any imaginable cruelty - up to and including 

ramming a steel rod down a puppy's throat to "debark" itwould become legal and have the same protection as free 

speech in Oklahoma. 

SQ 777 

Crews harvest wheat on Adkins Farm off of 

State Highway 9 in Goldsby in June 2015. 

STEVE SISNEY/The Oklahoman 

We don't think either nightmare scenario is likely, and chalk up the exaggerated rhetoric to the need to get 

voters excited ... and the desire to raise money. 

A rational review of SQ 777 comes to these conclusions: It solves no pressing problem in the state, and it 

could create some. 

The measure would prevent future state and local regulation on farming and livestock activities unless the 

state has a compelling state interest, a very high legal standard shared by basic civil rights. Rules that were 

on the books before Dec. 31, 2014, and regulations in several areas -trespassing laws, for example - are 

exempt. 

It wouldn't wipe animal cruelty laws off the books. Neither would it effectively protect the lifestyles of 

grandpa's farm. In fact, the measure would give enormous legal protections to big-time corporate 

agriculture, which is a greater threat to the iconic homestead than the Legislature. 

Agriculture remains an amazingly powerful interest group at the state Capitol. and Exhibit A is the 

legislative vote to put SQ 777 on the ballot in the first place. Frankly. farmers have little to fear from state 

lawmakers messing with their business. 

And when that's not true, shouldn't the people through their elected representatives, be able to regulate an 

industry that affects land, water and food? You say the state shouldn't regulate those things. Why not? 

The first rule of constitutional amendments should be: First, do no harm, and in its potential for unintended 

consequences- especially in the state's ability to protect its own environment- we fear harm in SQ 777. 

http:/lwww.tulsaworld.com/opinionfeditorialsltulsa..world-eOOorsement-agaJnst-state-questionfartkJe_1b14020f-6591-5754-8900-a911e74b0c02.html?mode=print 112 
544 

111912017 Tulsa World endorsement: Against State Question m- Tulsa World: Editorials 

Farming is very important, but SQ 777 doesn't solve any real Oklahoma problems, and its potential to create 

new problems in the future makes it bad policy. 

http:/twww.tulsaworld.com/opinionleditorialsltulsa-world-endorsement~against-state-questiotVarticle_1b14020fM6591-5754-8900-a911e74bOc02.html?mOOe=print 212 
545 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you, sir. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Pruitt, earlier today I mentioned that had 

submitted a list of about 50 questions to you shortly after Christmas, asked for a response by January 9th and got none. I asked 

my staff this morning if we had gotten written responses to those 

questions as of today. And I understand that we have not. 

You’re going to receive a number of questions for the record from 

us, Democrats and Republicans. And I am anxious to see what your 

responses are to those questions. We need your answers, and we 

need good answers. And the idea of waiting 2 or 3 weeks and not 

providing anything is just unacceptable. So just to put that out 

there. 

And I would like to ask you a question. 

Mr. PRUITT. If I may offer this, I tried to, and I talked to the 

Chairman about this, with respect to your questions I submitted, 

I was respecting the protocol of the Chair in responding to those 

questions and committed that those questions would be answered 

for the record post the hearing. And that is what I was directed to 

do by the Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Second, based on your other statements, I just want to clarify 

something. If confirmed, can we have your assurances that the 

EPA will continue to regulate mercury emissions from power plants 

under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, and you will not defer to 

the States? 

Mr. PRUITT. Mercury, under the section 112, is something that 

EPA should deal with and regulate. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. I came across a quote from you that 

said—I think you stated the following about an EPA rule involving 

cross-State smog pollution. And the EPA rule, I think you were 

quoted as saying, ‘‘threatened the competitive edge Oklahoma has 

enjoyed for years with low cost and reliable electric generation. 

This low cost energy not only benefits Oklahoma manufacturers 

but gives our State a considerable edge in recruiting new jobs.’’ 

And the question I would ask, at the peril of those of us who live 

in States that are downwind from where Oklahoma might be, as 

you lower your energy costs to benefit Oklahomans, I just want to 

ask you, in the spirit of the Golden Rule, keep in mind what that 

means for us. Keep in mind what that means for us. 

Because in my State, I said earlier on, I can shut down my 

State’s economy, and we still would be out of compliance on any 

number of Clean Air requirements. And that was not because of 

anything we put up in the air but because of what folks out to the 

west put up in the air. It eventually came down to the end of 

America’s tailpipe. I would just ask that you do that. 

And last, we have a chart, you see this chart. It’s an interesting 

chart. This is what we call a busy chart. It’s a busy chart. It looks 

at the issue of cross-border pollution, as you can see, with this 

chart, smog, pollution in our country moves all over the place. I 

mean, all over the place. As I mentioned, as Delaware’s Governor, 

we shut down my State in order to come in compliance with Clean 

Air challenges. Under your vision for EPA it sounds like States will 

be left on their own to deal with this very complex problem that 

we see demonstrated right here. I would just ask, how do States 
546 

address this kind of pollution you see demonstrated here without 

the assistance of the EPA? 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, Senator, as I indicated earlier today, I believe 

that as an example, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, to which 

you just referred, is a very important authority that the EPA needs 

to exercise. It needs to do so within the processes that have been 

provided by the statute. But it is something that is very important 

for the EPA to perform and execute. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous 

consent request to submit for the record, Mr. Chairman, a number 

of letters with concerns about and many letters in opposition to, 

some cases for, other cases opposition to Mr. Pruitt’s nomination. 

There are 14 in all. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced letters follow:] 
547 

AG Pruitt Opposition Letters 

I) F orrner State Environmental Agency Heads 

2) National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) 

3) Green Groups 

4) BlueGreen Alliance 

5) League of Conservation Voters 

6) African American Environmental Justice Organizations 

7) Clean Water Action 

8) Faith Organizations 

9) Health Professionals 

I 0) Latino Organizations 

!!)Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) 

12)National Congress of American Indians 

13)Campaign Legal Center 
548 

Achieving Community Tasks Successfully • Air Alliance Houston 

Coalition of Community Organizations • Community In-power & Development Association 

Concerned Citizens of Melia • Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice 

Cooperation Jackson • East New Orleans Advisory Commission 

Education, Economics, Environmental, Climate & Health Organization ("EEECHO") 

Deep South Center for Environmental Justice • Global Environmental Justice Project 

Green Door Initiative • Harambee House, Inc. • Hip Hop Caucus • Jesus People Against Pollution 

Kingdom Living Temple • Lower Ninth Ward Center for Sustainable Engagement 

Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition 

NAACP- Environmental and Climate Justice Committee • NAACP- Flint, Michigan Branch 

Road Map Consulting • Unity in the Family Ministry • Urban Planning and Environmental Policy 

WeACT for Environmental Justice 

January 17,2017 

Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senators Barrasso and Carper: 

Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Please name one achievement by Scott Pruitt, as Oklahoma State Attorney General, that has improved 

the environment or protected civil rights. Don't bother to Google it because the answer is NONE. 

As the African American leaders of environmental justice organizations, we urge the Senators serving 

on the Environment and Public Works Committee to oppose the confirmation of Scott Pruitt as 

Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We are outraged that Mr. Pruitt promises 

to set back and dismantle the policies and programs we have worked for more than 30 years to develop 

with community organizations across the nation. These policies were developed pursuant to both 

federal civil rights laws and environmental laws in order to remove racial disparities in environmental 

protection. 1 

As you know, the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee has scheduled a hearing on 

January 18, 20 17 to examine the nomination of Mr. Pruitt to the office of the EPA Administrator by 

President-Elect Donald Trump. There is nothing in Mr. Pruitt's record as the current Oklahoma State 

Attorney General to demonstrate that he would be dedicated to the mission of the EPA, which is to 

protect human health and the environment. Nor does his career indicate any action to improve 

environmental conditions in people of color communities, who are disproportionately burdened with 

pollution. 

Mr. Pruitt seeks to rise to the position of EPA Administrator as a reward for his efforts to block the 

EPA from mitigating the harmful effects of pollution "outside the fence-line" oftoxic industries.2 

1 See, for example, Obama Administration's Memorandum of Understanding on the President's Executive Order No. 

12,898 (August 4, 2011). President's Executive Order No. 12,898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-income Populations (February ll, 1994). Presidential Memorandum to the Heads of All 

Departments and Agencies (February ll, 1994 ). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency· s regulations implementing 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are found in 40 C.F.R. part 70. 2 Comment from the Attorneys General of the States of Oklahoma ... on Proposed EPA Carbon Pollution Emission 

Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, U.S. EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-

1 
549 

Let's be clear: the people who live beyond the fence of polluting industrial facilities and suffer the 

acute, chronic, cumulative and synergistic effects of exposure to pollution are predominantly African 

American and other people of color. 

Mr. Pruitt appears to relish the opportunity to remove standards that are protective of our basic rights 

to a healthy and safe environment. Case in point: Mr. Pruitt's dogged effort to axe the Obama 

Administration's Clean Power Plan would have devastating effects on predominantly African 

American communities. The Clean Power Plan requires the reduction of carbon pollution from power 

plants. It is the first federal air quality standard to establish requirements for states to achieve 

environmentaljustice.3 These requirements are based on the egregious fact that 78% of power plants 

are disproportionately located in close proximity to people of color and poor communities.4 The Clean 

Power Plan recognizes the vulnerability of people of color and poor communities to the disastrous 

effects of climate change, which is brought on by the burning of fossil fuels. 5 In the U.S., the largest 

source of pollution driving climate change is power plants. Additionally, this air quality standard 

direct states to ensure meaningful and effective participation of vulnerable communities in developing 

state plans for reducing power plant pollution.6 

We recognize that the biggest climate and environmental threats to our nation and planet are fueled, in 

part, by racial disparities in environmental protection. Industrial sites and major transportation routes 

are disproportionately located in and around predominantly African American neighborhoods, where 

residents are daily exposed to the smokestack and vehicle emissions that warm the planet as well as 

trigger asthma attacks and cause other severe health problems. We cannot effectively confront the 

threats of climate change by confirming Mr. Pruitt, a climate denier, to the post of EPA Administrator. 

We also cannot pursue remedies for racial disparities in environmental protection with Mr. Pruitt at the 

helm of the EPA, as he has shown himself to be hostile to preventing pollution that occurs 

disproportionately in communities of color. 

We need an EPA Administrator who will work to remedy the persistent and pervasive problem of 

environmental racism that results in: 

79% of African Americans living in polluted neighborhoods;" 

African American children being three to five times more likely than white children to be 

hospitalized or die from asthma; 8 

African Americans in 19 states being more than twice as likely as whites to live in neighborhoods 

with high pollution levels, compared to Hispanics in 12 states and Asians in 7 states;9 

0602, November 14.2014. See also Complaint filed in Oklahoma v. Gina McCarthy, US EPA Administrator, U.S. District 

Court (Northern District, Oklahoma), Case No. 15-CV-369-CVE-FHM. Complaint filed on July 1, 2015, pp. 8 and 13. 3 In the Clean Power Plan, the EPA explains that communities in located in close geographic proximity to power plants 

have a higher percentage of people of color and people with low-incomes than national averages (Federal Register, Vol. 80, 

No. 205, Part Ill. Octo her 23, 2015. p. 64670). The EPA recognizes that communities of color and poor communities are 

disproportionately atfected by, and lessresilient to the impacts of climate change (id. at pp. 64670, 64915). 

' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EJ Screening Report for the Clean Power Plan, July 30, 2015, p. 113. 5 See note 3. 6 ld 

7 David Pace, Minorities Suffer Most from Industrial Pollution. ASSOCIATED PRESS, December 14, 2005. 

&American Lung Association, Key Facts about Asthma. See also Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, !nformation 

about Asthma, Aflergies, Food Allergies, 2015. 

q /d. 

2 
550 

more than 68% of African Americans living within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant- the 

distance within which the maximum negative health effects of the smokestack plume are expected 

to occur- compared with 56% of whites and 39% of Latinos who live in the same proximity to a 

coal-fired power plant; 10 

African Americans being more vulnerable than whites to climate change, and less likely than 

whites to recover from disastrous weather events; 11 

the percentage of African Americans living near the fence line of a chemical plant is 75% greater 

than for the US as a whole, and the percentage of Latinos is 60% greater; 12 and 

predominantly African American neighborhoods with households incomes between $50,000 and 

$60,000 being more polluted than predominantly white neighborhoods with households incomes 

below $10,000. 13 

There is nothing in Mr. Pruitt's record as Oklahoma State Attorney General to indicate that he would 

be sensitive to and willing to help communities throughout the United States, where African 

Americans and other people of color disproportionately suffer and die from unhealthy environmental 

conditions, which also contribute to climate change. For all of the reasons stated above, we urge you 

to take a stand in opposing the confirmation of Mr. Pruitt as EPA Administrator. 

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Dr. Beverly Wright, Executive 

Director of the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, Inc., 1631 Elysian Fields Avenue, New 

Orleans, LA 70118, BeverlyLWright@gmail.com, 504-383-3563. 

Sincerely, 

Dr. Beverly Wright, Executive Director 

Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, Inc. 

1631 Elysian Fields Avenue 

New Orleans, LA 70118 

Ms. Peggy Shepard 

1854 Amsterdam Ave. (at 152nd St.) 

WeACT for Environmental Justice 

2nd Floor 

New York, NY I 003 I 

Ms. Francis Gilcreast, President 

NAACP- Flint Branch 

3455 Lippincott Blvd. 

Flint, Ml 48507 

Dr. Robert D. Bullard, Distinguished Professor 

Urban Planning and Environmental Policy 

Texas Southern University 

3100 Cleburne Street 

Houston, TX 77004 

Rev. Lennox Yearwood Jr., President/CEO 

Hip Hop Caucus 

20 F Street NW, 7th Floor 

Washington, DC 2000 I 

Dr. Charlotte Keys, Executive Director 

Jesus People Against Pollution 

P.O. Box464 

Colombia, MS 39429 

1

° Clean Air Task Force for Clear the Air, Air of Injustice: African Americans and Power Plant Po/Jution. 2002. 11 J. Andrew Hoerner and Nia Robinson. A Climate of Change: African Americans. Global Warming, and a Just Climate 

Poficyfor the U.S., Environmental Justice & Climate Change Initiative. 2008. 12 Environmental Justice and Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform! Who 's in Danger? Race, Poverty, and 

Chemical Disasters: A Democratic Analysis of Chemical Disaster Vulnerability Zones, 2014. 13 Liam Downey and Brian Hawkins. Race, Income and Environmental Inequality in the United States, SOCIOLOGICAL 

PERSPECTIVE, December I, 2008,51 (4): 759-78!. 

3 
551 

Rev. Leo Woodberry, Director 

Kingdom Living Temple 

2056 2nd Loop Road 

Florence, SC 29506 

Mr. Hilton Kelley, Founder & Director 

Community In-power & Development 

Association 

600 Austin Ave. 

Port Arthur, TX 77640 

Mr. David Pellow 

Dehlsen Chair of Environmental Studies 

Director, Global Environmental Justice Project 

University of California, Santa Barbara 

52 Mesa Lane, 4312 Bren Hall 

Santa Barbara, CA 931 06-4160 

Major Joe Womack, Vice-President 

Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition 

2816 Westmoor Court 

Mobile, AL 36695 

Ms. Katherine T. Egland, Chairperson 

Environmental and Climate Justice Committee 

NAACP National Board of Directors 

Gulfport, MS 

Ms. Donele Wilkins, President/CEO 

Green Door Initiative 

2990. W. Grand Blvd 

Detroit, Ml 48202 

Dr. Mildred McClain, Executive Director 

Harambee House, Inc. 

1115 Habersham Street 

Savannah, GA 3140 

Mr. Derrick Evans, Director 

Turkey Creek Community Initiatives 

79 Dale S tree! 

Roxbury, MA 02119 

Rev. Calvin Avant, Director 

Unity in the Family Ministry 

615 N. W Street 

Pensacola, FL 32534 

Mr. Brian Butler, Communications Outreach 

Director 

Air Alliance Houston 

3914 Leeland Street 

Houston, TX 77003 

4 

Mrs. Sylvia Scineaux-Richard, President 

East New Orleans Advisory Commission 

(ENONAC) 

7100 Read Blvd., Suite 201 

New Orleans, LA 70127 

Mr. Kali Akuno, Co-Director 

Cooperation Jackson 

1054 Central Street 

Jackson, MS 39203 

Ms. Sharon E. Lewis, Executive Director 

Connecticut Coalition for Environmental 

Justice 

10 Jefferson Street, C-1 

Hartford, CT 061 06 

Mr. Arthur Johnson, Chief Executive Officer 

Lower Ninth Ward Center for Sustainable 

Engagement 

5130 Chartres Street 

New Orleans, LA 70117 

Ms. Rebecca 0. Johnson, Consultant 

Road Map Consulting 

c/o Common Counsel Foundation 

1624 Franklin Street, #I 022 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Rev. James Caldwell, Executive Director 

Coalition of Community Organizations 

7113 Parker Road 

Houston, TX 770 16 

Ms. Ruth Story, Executive Director 

Education, Economics, Environmental, Climate 

and Health Organization (EEECHO) 

P.O. Box 7803 

Gulfport, MS 39506 

Mrs. Dorothy McWilliams 

Concerned Citizens for Melia 

New Orleans, LA 70126 

Ms. Bridgett Murray, Director 

Achieving Community Tasks Successfully 

1422 Ledwicke Street 

Houston, TX 77029 
552 

Linda Rcmstcm 

President 

Ellen Costa 

Secretary 

Doug Larkin 

Member at Large 

LauneRicc 

Member at Large 

EllcnTunkelrott 

Treasurer 

Nalio11al 

SpokesptrJO/f 

Jordan ZcYon 

S cienu Advisory Board 

Arthur L Frank, MD, PhD 

Co-Chair 

RKhard !£men, PhD, MSPH 

Co-Chair 

Dr. Bnd Black 

Dr. Oarry Ca~tlcman 

Dr. Raja Flores 

Dr.MJcbaellbrbut 

Dr. lledy Kindler 

Dr. Chri,;tine Olin:r 

Prtvtllfion Advitory Board 

Brent Krnoch 

Co-Chair 

Chnstmc Winter 

Co-Chair 

~hrkf:atlm 

Claire Deacon 

Tom I ,aubenthal 

John~ewqulst 

Tony R1ch 

~fark \'\1inter 

January 17,2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso The Honorable Tom Carper 

Chairman, U.S. Senate Environment and 

Public Works Committee 

Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Environment and 

Public \\"torks Committee 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington DC 20510 

513 Hart Senate Office Building 

\Vashington DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper, 

On behalf the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), we {)ppose the nomination of 

Oklahoma AG Scott Pruitt as U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator. We are 

deeply concerned that he lacks the qualifications and understanding to lead the EPA and urge the 

Senate to deny his confirmation. 

The EPA is paramount in protecting the American public and our environment from toxic and 

destructive pollutants -like deadly asbestos~ yet the President-elect's nominee to run this agency 

\'ehemently disagrees. Pruitt is openly pro-business, anti-regulation, and anti-science. In fact, Scott 

Pruitt's own Linkedln profile 1 proudly boasts having tiled 14la\vsuits against the EPA and its ''acth·ist 

agenda." He has no formal training, education or professional experience in any of the physical 

sciences. 

Even more concerning than Pruitt's lack of relevant scientific background is his exhibited willingness to 

be a mouthpiece and champion for corporate interests. His penchant for siding with industry is of 

significant concern ro the public health and environmental communities. The asbestos industry has 

dumped millions into funding "independent research" that claims asbestos to be safe. This junk science 

aided by weak chemical reguhtion laws foiled a 1989 attempt by the EPA to ban2 the known 

human carcinogen. 

This summer, Congress delivered a huge win to public health when it passed the Lautenberg Chemical 

Safety Act (LCSA)3, an historic bipartisan and bicameral bill that finally empo\vered the EPA to evaluate 

and regulate toxic chemicals. However, a Pruitt-led EPA would be more susceptible than ever to 

industry-backed junk ~ciencc that could derail progress toward rne(lningful chemical regulations. The 

chemical industry is already positioning itself to exert influence over the Lauten berg Act 

implementation process, as evidenced by their August 24, 2016lettcr to EPA. 

ADAO urges the U.S. Senate vote against confirming AG Scott Pruitt's nomination. America needs an 

EPA Administrator with the education, understanding, willingness to stand up against corporate 

interests in order to ensure TSCA is implemented based on the best possible science, in the best interest 

of public health and the environment, Scott Pruitt's background and experience prove he his 

unqualified to serve this rok 

Sincerely, 
553 

"'l~SIERRA 

WCLUB 

NRCIC 

~ 

::._:tli 

SEIU EDFf:e..ACTION fc~pred 

LSc:ientists 

January 13, 2017 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator: 

As members of the BlueGreen Alliance, a coalition of the nation's largest labor unions and 

environmental groups, collectively representing millions of members and supporters, we urge 

you to oppose the nomination of Scott Pruitt to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

As Attorney General of Oklahoma, Scott Pruitt has sued the EPA numerous times over its efforts 

to provide Americans with clean air, clean water, and a safe and healthy environment. This 

includes a lawsuit challenging common-sense methane pollution safeguards. Plugging these 

wasteful methane leaks will not only protect communities, workers, and the environment, but 

will create and sustain thousands of good-paying jobs finding and fixing leaked natural gas that 

could be powering homes. He also has targeted clean water, suing the EPA over pollution 

standards for more than half of the nation's waterways, some of which feed into the drinking 

water supplies of 117 million citizens. Someone who has dedicated his career to going after our 

nation's bedrock environmental and public health laws- the very health protections that the EPA 

is mandated to protect - is not suited to run the EPA. 

Scott Pruitt has also consistently ignored the well-established science showing that our climate is 

changing, claiming that it is "far from settled." Climate change is real and is threatening 

communities and livelihoods around the world. We have an opportunity to create and maintain 

good-quality, family-sustaining jobs in the clean economy. Policies that stimulate investment in 

clean energy and energy-efficient technologies will help spur innovation, investment, and 

manufacturing while ensuring that the U.S. does not fall behind in the development and 

commercialization of these technologies that are driving a growing share of economic growth 

around the world. America should be a leader in addressing climate change and domestically 
554 

deploying the innovative clean technology of the future. Someone who recognizes neither the 

threat nor the opportunity of climate change is not suited to run the EPA. 

Unfortunately, Scott Pruitt's shortcomings are not limited to environmental protection but extend 

to protecting workers' rights as well. As an Oklahoma State Senator, Pruitt voted for a 

Constitutional Amendment to make Oklahoma a right-to-work state. Additionally, while 

employees of the state were being laid off and Oklahoma faced a $1.3 billion budget deficit, 

Pruitt increased the Attorney General's office expenses by 40 percent and added nearly 60 

employees to sue the administration over a variety of worker and environmental protections. 

While other agencies downsized, Pruitt moved one of his offices near his home into the luxurious 

Bank of America Tower, more than tripling its rent and increasing its space to more than I 0,000 

square feet. Someone who used his office in this manner when he should have been protecting 

working people and the environment is not suited to run the EPA. 

We cannot afford to reverse the progress we've made in cutting pollution, reducing exposure to 

toxic chemicals in the workplace, addressing climate change, and in creating and sustaining 

quality jobs through cleaner energy and energy efficiency. Stopping that progress or 

backsliding-whether by backing out of the Paris agreement, weakening the implementation of 

the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (LCSA) and other critical safeguards, or reversing policies 

that are driving manufacturing recovery, innovation, and job creation while reducing pollution 

and greenhouse gas emissions-would be a terrible decision for workers and the environment. 

Allowing Scott Pruitt-a man who has spent his entire career demonizing attempts to protect our 

environment and the health and safety of working people--to become our next EPA 

Administrator would be a large step backward. 

We need to fight together for an economy that works for all of us. We can safeguard workers and 

grow quality jobs. We can protect our environment by making our energy cleaner and our homes 

and businesses more energy efficient-all while creating the kinds of jobs Americans need to get 

ahead. We don't have to choose between safe workplaces or a clean environment and good jobs. 

We can and must have both. 

We urge you to vote against the confirmation of Scott Pruitt as EPA Administrator. 

Sincerely, 

United Steelworkers (USW) 

Sierra Club 

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) 
555 

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 

Environmental Defense Action Fund 

Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) 

International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers (BAC) 
556 

1411 K Street, NW, Suite 1400 ·Washington, DC 20005 

tel (202) 736-2200 ·fax (202) 736-2222 

www.campaignlegalcenter.org 

Mr. Kevin S. Minoli 

Principal Deputy General Counsel & 

Designated Agency Ethics Officer 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Mail Code: 2355A 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Mr. Minoli: 

January 18,2017 

On behalf of the Campaign Legal Center, we write concerning the January 3, 2017, ethics 

agreement addressed to you from Edward Scott Pruitt, nominee to be the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1 A copy of this letter is also being sent to Mr. Walter 

M. Shaub, Jr., Director of the Office of Government Ethics. 

Whatever policy agenda the President's nominee has for the EPA, it is a central feature of 

our government that the agenda be pursued free of legal conflicts of interest. Presumably, in an 

effort to satisfy that obligation, Mr. Pruitt's ethics agreement describes certain steps he will take 

if confirmed as EPA Administrator to limit his participation in litigation against the agency that 

he initiated or joined as Oklahoma Attorney General. 

However, given Mr. Pruitt's role in leading and coordinating litigation against the same 

agency he hopes to lead, the plan described in his ethics agreement is insufficient to avoid actual 

or apparent conflicts of interest, and would cause members of the public to question his 

impartiality in the conduct of his duties, contrary to his obligation to "ensure that every citizen 

can have complete confidence in the integrity of the Federal Government." 5 C.F.R. § 

2635.101(a). 

According to Mr. Pruitt's personal campaign website (http://scottpruitt.com/meet-scott/), 

as Oklahoma Attorney General he has been "a national leader in the fight against ... the EPA's 

intrusion into property rights." Mr. Pruitt's website boasts that: 

1 Available on the Office of Government Ethics website, 

hnps: //extapps2 oge gov /201 /Presiden ns(/PAS+ lndex/1D30B3387FC4EBC0852580A1 002CZD1E/$F!LE/P 

ruitt,%20Edward%20Scott%20%20%20fina!EA.pdf 
557 

Mr. Kevin S. Minoli 

l-18-17 

p.2 

"Pruitt led a coalition ofthirty states who have obtained an injunction barring the EPA's 

'Waters of the United States' rule, which seeks to greatly expand the federal governments 

regulatory jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act." 

Mr. Pruitt's campaign website also states: 

"Pruitt has led a nearly thirty state coalition of states who obtained an unprecedented 

injunction from the Supreme Court barring the EPA's 'Clean Power Plan" from going 

into effect. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board noted that 'Oklahoma AG Scott 

Pruitt deserves particular credit for developing the federalist arguments and exposing 

how the Clean Power Plan commandeers states."' 

Both of the cases against EPA described on Mr. Pruitt's campaign website are ongoing, 

active cases. If confirmed as the head ofthe EPA, Mr. Pruitt will be in a position to decide to 

defend-or settle-the same cases that he initiated or supported in his role as Oklahoma 

Attorney General. According to some estimates, as Oklahoma Attorney General Mr. Pruitt has 

been involved in litigation opposing the EPA in at least 26 cases; nine of those cases appear to 

ongoing. 

For Mr. Pruitt now to participate as EPA Administrator in litigation he initiated, 

organized, or otherwise supported would present an actual and apparent conflict of interest. 

Mr. Pruitt's ethics agreement does not explicitly address these lawsuits, but suggests that, 

one year after being confirmed, he may attempt to participate as EPA Administrator in ongoing 

matters he initiated and supported as Oklahoma Attorney General-and that he will seek 

waivers to participate in those matters before that period expires. The agreement also raises the 

possibility he would be free as EPA Administrator to participate in these lawsuits if Oklahoma 

were to withdraw or waive any conflicts. 

The relevant paragraph states: 

Upon confirmation, I will resign from my position as Attorney General of the 

State of Oklahoma. For a period or one year after my resignation, I will have a 

"covered relationship" under 5 C.F .R. § 2635.502 with the State of 

Oklahoma. Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(d), I will seek authorization to 

participate personally and substantially in particular matters involving specific 

parties in which I know the State of Oklahoma is a party or represents a party. 

The actions he proposes are unacceptable, and will not resolve the conflicts that would 

arise from his participating as EPA Administrator in litigation against the EPA that he initiated 

or otherwise participated in. 

5 C.F.R. § 2635.502, often known as the "impartiality rule," requires recusal when an 

employee has a "covered relationship" with a party to a particular matter, and the circumstances 

are such that a reasonable person would question the employee's impartiality were they to 

participate in the matter. 

2 
558 

Mr. Kevin S. Minoli 

1-18-17 

p.3 

An employee has a "covered relationship" with a person if within the last year, they 

served as an officer of, or attorney for, that person. 5 C.F.R. § 2635.02(b)(l)(iv). Mr. Pruitt's 

ethics agreement acknowledges that, given his role as Attorney General of Oklahoma within the 

past year, he has a "covered relationship" with the state. 2 And given Mr. Pruitt's role in litigation 

against the EPA, the circumstances are such that a reasonable person would question his 

impartiality as EPA Administrator in that same litigation. 

However, by limiting Mr. Pruitt's recusal obligations to a one-year period, his ethics 

agreement ignores the purpose of the relevant regulations and adopts an overly narrow view of 

their application. 

The Standards of Ethical Conduct for Executive Branch Employees, ofwhich the 

impartiality rule is part, require that employees avoid any actions that create the appearance of a 

conflict of interest, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.10l(b)(l4), so that the public can have complete confidence 

in the integrity and appearance of administrative decisionmaking, id. § 2635.10 l (a). 

The impartiality rule, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502, is not intended to be read in the narrow and 

mechanical manner reflected in Mr. Pruitt's ethics agreement. Indeed, the rule expressly 

anticipates "circumstances other than those specifically described in this section [that] would 

raise a question regarding [an employee's] impartiality," and indicates that an agency may 

require an employee to recuse in such circumstances. 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(a)(2); see also OGE 

D0-06-029 at 7. 

By any reasonable standard, the circumstances here require Mr. Pruitt's recusal for the 

duration of the litigation, and regardless of whether Oklahoma withdraws from a suit or waives 

any conflict. 

The conflict or appearance of a conflict arising from Mr. Pruitt participating as EPA 

Administrator in litigation that he initiated or supported against the agency does not diminish by 

the passage of one year. Pruitt's "covered relationship" with Oklahoma triggers the application 

of 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502, but given that the lawsuits in question may endure for several years, the 

application ofthe rule in this instance must endure as well. 

Mr. Pruitt also must continue to recuse himself from EPA lawsuits that he initiated or 

supported even if Oklahoma were to withdraw or waive any conflicts. The actual or apparent 

conflicts that would arise from Mr. Pruitt's participation in these matters are less about his 

previous relationship with Oklahoma, and more about his central role in advancing the litigation 

against the EPA. Mr. Pruitt has gone beyond merely representing Oklahoma in these cases: as 

described on his campaign website, Mr. Pruitt was a driving force behind the suits and personally 

held himself out as an opponent of the EPA and the challenged rules. 

2 It is beyond dispute that litigation is a "particular matter involving specific parties" for purposes of 5 C.F.R. § 

2635.502. See Memorandum from the OGE Director Robert I. Cusick to Designated Agency Ethics Officials, 

D0-06-029, http:/ fwww.usoge.govfpagesjdaeograms/dgr_files/ 2006/do06029.html; see also 5 C.F.R. § 

2640.102(1}. 

3 
559 

Mr. Kevin S. Minoli 

1-18-17 

p.4 

Finally, given the real and apparent conflicts posed by the unique circumstances 

described above, any request from Mr. Pruitt for a waiver should be denied pursuant to 5 C.F.R. 

§ 2635.502(d). 

As EPA's designated ethics official, we respectfully request that you take steps to prevent 

the actual and apparent conflicts of interest that would arise were Mr. Pruitt allowed to 

participate as EPA Administrator in litigation that he previously initiated or supported against the 

EPA. 

At a minimum, Mr. Pruitt must agree to recuse from participating as EPA Administrator 

in litigation matters where he previously supported an adverse interest as Oklahoma Attorney 

General; that such recusal will last for the duration of the litigation, and regardless of whether the 

State of Oklahoma withdraws or waives any conflicts; and that he will not apply, or be 

considered eligible, for any waivers from these recusal requirements. 

Respectfully submitted, 

~ 

--<~ //~ 

cc: Walter M. Shaub 

Director 

U.S. Office of Government Ethics 

General Counsel 

Campaign Legal Center 

1411 K Street, NW, Suite 1400 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 736-2200 

1201 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

4 
560 

CREW I 

Mr. Kevin S. Minoli 

Principal Deputy General Counsel & 

Designated Agency Ethics Officer 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Mail Code: 2355A 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

By first class mail 

citizens for responsibility 

and ethics in washington 

January 17, 2017 

Re: Ethics Agreement of Edward Scott Pruitt dated January 3, 2017 

Dear Mr. Minoli: 

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) writes to express our 

concern regarding the January 3, 2017, letter to you from Edward Scott Pruitt, available on the 

website of the Office of Government Ethics, concerning his possible nomination to be 

Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1 A copy of this 

letter is also being sent to Mr. Walter M. Shaub, Jr., Director of the Office of Government 

Ethics. 

In his letter, Mr. Pruitt acknowledges his covered relationship with the State of Oklahoma 

arising out of his current position as Attorney General of that state, as defmed under 5 C.F.R. 

§ 2635.502. He also indicates that he "will seek authorization to participate personally and 

substantially" in "particular matters involving specific parties in which [he] know[s] the State of 

Oklahoma is a party or represents a party" (emphasis supplied). This deviation from the standard 

language employed in ethics agreements raises a concern that Mr. Pruitt intends to "switch sides" 

in the litigation and seek to participate as EPA Administrator, if confirmed, which would present 

both an actual and an apparent conflict of interest, and therefore would be improper under the 

governing ethics rules. 

As Oklahoma Attorney General, Mr. Pruitt sued EPA at least 14 times,2 and reportedly 

has filed briefs opposing EPA in suits brought by others in a number of other cases, at least some 

of which appear to be ongoing. For Mr. Pruitt now to switch sides and participate as EPA 

Administrator in any of these matters would present an actual and apparent conflict of interest 

that is improper under the governing ethics rules. Many factors are present that would cause "a 

reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts to question his impartiality in these 

matters" and "to question the integrity of the agency's programs and operations" if he were now 

1

https://extapps2.oge.gov/20 1/Presiden.nsffl'AS+lndex/l D30B33 87FC4ESC0852580A I 002C7Dl E/$FILE/Pruitt,% 

20Edwardo/o20Scott%20o/o20%20frna!EA.pdf 

2 https://www.documentcloud.org!documents/3290872-Pruitt-v-EP A·a-Compilation-of-Oklahoma-!4.httnl 

455 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., 6th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20001 I 202.408.5565 phone I 202.588.5020 fax I IWNI.citizensforethics.org 

•-">:!>•·" 
561 

to participate in these cases as Administrator. See 5 C.P.R. § 2635.502(a), (d). These factors 

include Mr. Pruitt's leading role in and vigorous prosecution of these cases against EPA; his 

many public statements demonstrating his fixed and fmn views opposed to the EPA rules and 

standards at issue in these cases; and his close alignment with and aggressive fundraising from 

private sector parties involved in these cases and opposed to EPA. 

As discussed below, any interest the Government may have in Mr. Pruitt's participation 

in these cases cannot outweigh the concern over these actual and apparent conflicts of interest 

that would lead reasonable persons to doubt his impartiality and question the integrity of the 

agency's programs and operations. Id The rules further state that "[a]n employee's reputation 

for honesty and integrity is not a relevant consideration for purposes of any determination 

required by this section." 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(e). 

It is essential, therefore, that Mr. Pruitt be recused from any participation in these 

lawsuits if confirmed. 

I. Necessity ofrecusal regardless of whether Oklahoma remains a party. Mr. Pruitt 

acknowledges that, absent a waiver issued by you pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(d), he may 

not participate personally and substantially as Administrator in particular matters involving 

specific parties to which the State of Oklahoma is a party. That necessarily includes the lawsuits 

at issue here. That undertaking, however, leaves open the possibility that he could participate in 

such lawsuits if Oklahoma were to withdraw from them. That would hardly eliminate the actual 

conflict and appearance of conflict. 

As Oklahoma Attorney General, Mr. Pruitt initiated, participated in, and pursued each of 

these lawsuits jointly with his counterparts in as many as 26 other states (the number depending 

on the matter), and with lawyers representing dozens of companies, trade associations, and other 

organizations subject to the EPA rules and standards at issue. Mr. Pruitt has acknowledged in 

many public statements that he prepared, brought, and pursued these matters jointly with these 

other attorneys general, often operating through the Republican Attorneys General Association 

(RAGA), of which he was previously chairman or a principal officer. Mr. Pruitt has held 

numerous meetings related to these cases and the underlying rulemakings with industry colitigants and other companies and trade associations benefited by his litigation. He has solicited 

and accepted funds to support such activities from co-litigants and other private parties aligned 

with his lawsuits, including through RAGA and the associated Rule of Law Defense Fund. 

It is therefore essential that Mr. Pruitt be required to recuse himself entirely from each of 

these matters even if Oklahoma were to withdraw from them or to waive any conflict. 

2. Necessity for recusal to last the foil length of litigation. Mr. Pruitt has committed not 

to participate in these matters (in the absence of a waiver) only for one year following his 

resignation as Oklahoma Attorney General. These litigation matters, however, could easily 

extend more than one year into the future. There would be serious actual and apparent conflicts 

leading to reasonable doubts about Mr. Pruitt's impartiality if he were to participate in these 

lawsuits as EPA Administrator at any point in their lifetime. It is therefore essential that Mr. 

Pruitt's recusals last through the full course of each matter. 

2 
562 

3. No grounds for waivers under 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(d). As noted above, Mr. Pruitt's 

letter indicates that he plans to seek waivers to participate in the matters discussed above despite 

the real and apparent conflicts that his participation would pose. Mr. Pruitt's waiver request for 

any of these matters should be denied based on consideration of the relevant factors listed under 

that regulation. 

The factors to be considered by the agency designee under 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(d) 

include: 

(I) The nature of the relationship involved; 

(2) The effect that resolution of the matter would have upon the fmancial interests 

of the person involved in the relationship; 

(3) The nature and importance of the employee's role in the matter, including the 

extent to which the employee is called upon to exercise discretion in the matter; 

(4) The sensitivity of the matter; 

(5) The difficulty of reassigning the matter to another employee; and 

(6) Adjustments that may be made in the employee's duties that would reduce or 

eliminate the likelihood that a reasonable person would question the employee's 

impartiality. 

Factor (1). The nature of the relationship involved weighs strongly against a waiver. Mr. 

Pruitt's prior position as Oklahoma Attorney General made him the principal, top-level official 

who determined the state's position in each of these cases. Mr. Pruitt's joint prosecution of each 

case with his fellow attorneys general and other allied parties made him a principal determinant 

of the position of all the allied parties in each of the cases. In none of these matters was he a 

lower-level functionary or delegate carrying out a higher Oklahoma official's decisions. And, 

indeed, it is possible that Mr. Pruitt's failure to recuse himsetffrom these cases would violate the 

Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys, further demonstrating that Mr. Pruitt's 

relationship to these cases argues against the propriety of a waiver, and that Mr. Pruitt's 

participation would create a significant appearance of a conflict of interest. 5 O.S. § l-App. 3A, 

at Rule 1.9. These facts lead to the strongest possible real and apparent conflicts of interest, and 

the strongest possible basis for a reasonable person to question his impartiality if he were to 

participate as EPA Administrator. 

Factor (3). The nature of his role and the exercise of discretion in it weigh strongly 

against a waiver. As EPA Administrator, Mr. Pruitt would occupy EPA's most substantive and 

visible role, and if granted a waiver, he would have the most central task in the agency of 

directing its position in these cases. To the extent that EPA has legal discretion in any of these 

matters, for Mr. Pruitt to exercise that discretion in making or directing decisions relevant to the 

litigation would create an actual conflict. It would also create the strongest possible appearance 

3 
563 

of conflict, as well as the strongest possible basis for a reasonable person to question his 

impartiality. 

Factor ( 4). The lawsuits Mr. Pruitt filed or participated in against the EPA, by their 

nature, challenge a wide variety of rules and policies that represent the EPA's exercise ofits 

most significant statutory obligations. A real or perceived conflict of interest, therefore, in the 

agency's conduct of these lawsuits presents a significant risk to the agency's credibility and 

ongoing ability to comply with the will of Congress, in these areas and perhaps in others as well. 

Factor (5) and (6). Neither of these factors would justify a waiver. Another EPA 

appointee or another agency official could be assigned to participate in these cases, provided that 

person did not also have either real or apparent conflicts of interest causing a reasonable person 

to question that person's impartiality. Further, there is no feasible adjustment in the 

Administrator's duties other than total recusal from these matters that could reduce or eliminate 

the actual or apparent conflicts that would be presented by Mr. Pruitt's participation. 

For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that you take the necessary steps as 

EPA's designated ethics official to avoid what would be severe actual and apparent conflicts of 

interest, as well as to avoid the concern about impartial decision-making that would present a 

significant risk to the agency's ongoing ability to meet its statutory obligations, by publicly 

clarifying that if confirmed as Administrator: 

(1) Mr. Pruitt will be recused from participating on EPA's behalf in each of the litigation 

matters listed on the attachment; 

(2) His recusal will extend to all parties in each such matter; 

(3) His recusal will last the life of each such matter; and 

(4) He will not be granted waivers from such recusal in any of these matters. 

Sincerely, 

Noah Bookbinder, Executive Director 

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington 

cc: Walter M. Shaub, Jr. 

Director 

U.S. Office of Government Ethics 

1201 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 

Washington, DC 20005 

4 
564 

~CLEAN WATER ACTION 

January 17, 2017 

Dear Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and members of the Senate 

Environment and Public Works Committee: 

Clean Water Action, on behalf of our nearly one million members, urges you to reject 

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt for Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Administrator. Mr. Pruitt has a long record of siding with industry polluters instead of 

protecting communities from pollution. This alarming conflict of interest clearly makes 

him unqualified to head an agency whose very mission is to protect public health and 

the environment. 

Americans expect and deserve an EPA administrator who demonstrates a commitment 

to protect our health and environment. Scott Pruitt has made a career out of suing EPA 

to prevent the agency from doing its job to protect our air, land, and water. Many of 

these lawsuits have been unsuccessful, such as his failed attempt to block EPA 

requirements for coal-fired power plants in Oklahoma to install air pollution control 

scrubbers to reduce harmful emissions. 

Scott Pruitt does not support commonsense clean water protections. As Oklahoma 

Attorney General, Mr. Pruitt was one of the first state AGs to sue EPA to overturn long 

overdue safeguards for vital water resources that feed the drinking water sources for at 

least one in three people, including 2.3 million people in Oklahoma. 

Scott Pruitt has repeatedly brought these types of lawsuits against EPA claiming the 

agency is trampling on states' rights, yet his own record reveals that he does not respect 

the right of citizens in his own state to clean water. Since taking office as AG in 2010, 

Mr. Pruitt halted a lawsuit to force Arkansas chicken farmers to abide by Oklahoma's 

water pollution standards for the Illinois River. His inaction has put the profits of outof-state agribusiness over the health of his own state. 

Americans expect and deserve an EPA administrator who will make policy decisions 

guided by science. Not only does Scott Pruitt deny the overwhelming scientific 

consensus that climate change is real and human-driven, he unsuccessfully tried to 

block EPA's endangerment finding that carbon dioxide, methane and other green house 

gases are harmful. Mr. Pruitt also lacks understanding of basic hydrology. He has said 

publically that the Clean Water Act should only over cover waterways large enough to 
565 

float a boat - ignoring the critical role that wetlands and streams play in protecting 

water quality in larger bodies of water. 

Americans expect and deserve an EPA administrator who will stand up to egregious 

polluters. Mr. Pruitt joined the Farm Bureau, the Fertilizer Institute and other industrial 

agricultural interests to sue EPA over its enforcement of Total Maximum Daily Load 

(TMDL) limits for nutrient and sediment pollution choking the Chesapeake Bay. EPA's 

enforcement of these pollution limits is essential to restoring the health of the Bay. 

Our country faces numerous complex environmental challenges and we need an EPA 

administrator who is prepared and committed to following science and law to make 

meaningful progress toward continuing to clean-up our nation's air, land, and water. 

Scott Pruitt has made a career out of handing out free passes to some of the biggest 

polluting industries in the country- allowing these polluters to cause real, direct harm 

to public health and the environment - all while raking in huge profits. 

Mr. Pruitt as EPA administrator would reverse over forty years of progress of cleaning 

up our environment and holding industries accountable for their pollution. We urge 

you to reject his nomination to head EPA. 

Sincerely, 

Robert Wendelgass 

President & CEO 

Clean Water Action 
566 

January 17,2017 

Dear Senator: 

On behalf of our millions of members and activists, we urge you to stand up for clean air, clean water, 

healthy communities and a safe climate by insisting that the Environmental Protection Agency must be 

headed by an individual who is qualified for the office and dedicated to these values. 

President-elect Trump's nominee to head the EPA, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, has actively 

worked against the mission of the agency he has been nominated to lead and he should be rejected by 

the Senate. 

Mr. Pruitt has repeatedly sued the EPA to block clean air and clean water standards that will protect the 

health and well-being of millions of Americans. 

For example, he has sued the EPA to overturn standards to curb mercury and other toxic air pollutants 

that will prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 asthma attacks per year. He has sued to 

void standards to reduce soot and smog pollution projected to prevent up to 15,000 non-fatal heart 

attacks, 34,000 premature deaths, and 400,000 asthma attacks every year. These lawsuits are bad news 

for all Americans, but especially the more than 24 million Americans with asthma. 

Mr. Pruitt denies the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and is driven by 

human-made air pollution. He sued unsuccessfully to overturn the EPA's scientific endangerment 

determination that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping air pollutants are harmful. And he has sued 

to block the EPA from setting any limits on carbon pollution from power plants, the nation's largest 

polluter. 

Mr. Pruitt has repeatedly argued that EPA should have little or no role in protecting Americans' health 

and well-being from air and water pollution. Thus, he apparently rejects fundamental provisions of the 

Clean Air Act that require the EPA to set national public health standards-standards that guarantee 

protection to all Americans, regardless of where they live, and protect states from a "race to the 

bottom" in which they are pressured to compete for industry by offering lax health and environmental 

standards. 

Mr. Pruitt has sued the EPA to overturn clean water safeguards for more than half the nation's 

waterways, including streams that feed into the drinking water supplies of 117 million Americans. He 

even sued to block limits on water pollution into the Chesapeake Bay, which has no known connection 

to Oklahoma. 

There is a long bipartisan history in this country of supporting clean air, clean water and a healthy 

environment. The American public did not vote for more air and water pollution, for more pesticides in 

our foods or for more toxic chemicals in toys. The American people did not vote to put the EPA in the 

hands of someone who has recklessly worked against its mission to protect Americans' health and the 

natural environment. 
567 

Scott Pruitt's views and actions run counter to the EPA's critical mission to protect our health and the 

environment. This makes him unfit to administer the laws he would be entrusted to enforce. The 

Senate should reject his nomination. 

Sincerely, 

350.org 

350PDX 

Air Alliance Houston 

Alaska Community Action on Taxies 

Alaska Wilderness League 

Alliance for Citizenship 

Alliance for Democracy 

Alliance for Energy Democracy 

Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments 

American Rivers 

Apostolic Faith Center 

Appalachian Mountain Club 

Appalachian Mountain Advocates 

Appalachian Voices 

Ashurst Bar/Smith Community Organization 

Battlement Concerned Citizens 

BECAUSE 

Bold A Ilia nee 

Breast Cancer Action 

California Kids IAQ 

Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund 

Center for Biological Diversity 

Center for Environmental Health 

Center for Food Safety 

Center for International Environmental Law 

Center for Science in the Public Interest 

Central Valley Air Quality Coalition (CVAQ) 

Chesapeake Climate Action Network 

Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility 

Citizens Action Coalition of IN 

Citizens' Environmental Coalition 

Clean Air Task Force 

Clean and Healthy New York 

Clean Water Action 

Clean Wisconsin 

Climate Action Alliance of the Valley 

Climate Law & Policy Project 

ClimateTruth.org Action 

Coalition For A Safe Environment 

Coalition for Clean Air 

Community Dreams 

Concerned Residents of Portland, NY+ People Like Us (CropPius) 
568 

Conservation Colorado 

Conservation Voters New Mexico & CVNM Educotion Fund 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Downwinders at Risk 

Earth Action, Inc. 

Earthjustice 

Earthworks 

Eco-Justice Collaborative 

Ecology Center 

Ecology Center (Michigan) 

Elders Climate Action 

Emerald Cities Collaborative 

EMERGE 

eNRG- Energizing Renewable Growth in Holston Valley 

Environment America 

Environment Arizono 

Environment California 

Environment Colorado 

Environment Connecticut 

Environment Florida 

Environment Georgia 

Environment Illinois 

Environment Iowa 

Environment Maine 

Environment Maryland 

Environment Massachusetts 

Environment Michigan 

Environment Minnesota 

Environment Missouri 

Environment Montana 

Environment Nevada 

Environment New Hompshire 

Environment New Jersey 

Environment New Mexico 

Environment New York 

Environment North Carolina 

Environment Ohio 

Environment Oregon 

Environment Rhode Island 

Environment Texas 

Environment Virginia 

Environment Washington 

Environmental Advocates of New York 

Environmental Defense Fund 

Environmental Health Strategy Center 

Environmental Integrity Project 

Environmental Law and Policy Center 

Environmental Working Group 
569 

Farmworker Justice 

French Broad Riverkeeper 

Friends of the Earth 

Gasp 

Grand Canyon Trust 

Green America 

Green For All 

GreenLatinos 

Heal the Bay 

Health Care Without Harm 

Hispanic federation 

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy 

Interfaith Power & Light 

Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement 

Iowa Interfaith Power & Light 

Labadie Environmental Organization (LEO) 

Latino Decisions 

League of Conservation Voters 

Let's Talk Climate 

Louisiana Bucket Brigade 

Maine Audubon 

Maine Wilderness Guides Organization 

Mass Audubon 

Missouri Coalition for the Environment 

Moms Clean Air Force 

Montana Conservation Voters 

Montana Environmental Information Center 

National Audubon Society 

National Parks Conservation Association 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Nevada Conservation League 

New Virginia Majority 

NextGen Climate 

North Carolina League of Conservation Voters 

Northern Plains Resource Council 

Ocean Futures Society 

Oceana 

Ohio Citizen Action 

Ohio Environmental Council 

Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition 

Oil Change International 

Oregon Aviation Watch 

Oregon Environmental Council 

Partnership for Policy Integrity 

PennEnvironment 

PennFuture 

People's Action 

Pesticide Action Network 
570 

Physicians for Social Responsibility 

Potomac Riverkeeper Network 

Prevent Harm 

Public Citizen 

Renew Missouri 

RESTORE: The North Woods 

Rochester People's Climate Coalition 

Rootskeeper.org 

Safe Climate Campaign 

Safer Chemicals Healthy Families 

San Pedro & Peninsula Homeowners Coalition 

Save The Bay, Oakland, CA 

Sierra Club 

South Portland Air Quality 

Southern Maine Conservation Collaborative 

St. Philomena Social Justice Ministry 

Students for a Just & Stable Future 

Texas league of Conservation Voters 

The Alaska Center 

The Climate Reality Project 

The Climate Trust 

The Environmental Justice Center at Chestnut Hill United Church 

The Greenlining Institute 

The Trustees 

Union of Concerned Scientists 

Virginia Organizing 

Voices for Progress 

WaterWatch of Oregon 

Western Colorado Congress 

Western Organization of Resource Councils 

Wholly H20 

Wilmington Improvement Network 

Wiscon league of Conservation Voters 

Wisconsin Environment 

Young Fresnans for the Environment 
571 

January 17, 2017 

Dear Senator: 

Our faith traditions value inclusivity, justice, peace, ecological stewardship, and the common 

good. It is through this lens that we review the recent nominations from President-elect Trump, 

including the nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

President-elect Trump indicated his intention to protect clean air and water. Yet, Pruitt, his 

nominee for EPA Administrator, has worked against protecting the environment and human 

health. Pruitt, as Oklahoma Attorney General, brought multiple lawsuits against the EPA to 

counter measures that would safeguard our public health, land and water. In addition, Pruitt 

has cast doubt on the science of climate change, helping to create an atmosphere that has 

delayed action on climate and placed communities, particularly low-income and minority 

communities, at risk for increased disease and other climate impacts. 

President-elect Trump promised to drain the swamp of Washington from special interest 

influence. Yet, Trump's nominee to head EPA collected more than $300,000 in campaign 

contributions from the fossil fuel industry. Your duty as Senator is to assure the preservation of 

this republic and provide for the general welfare of the people, not for self-serving special 

interests. 

We are concerned that Pruitt as head of the EPA would put vulnerable communities at risk for 

environmental harm and prioritize polluters over human health. As faith organizations, we 

therefor urge you to carefully investigate, thoroughly question and consider rejection of the 

appointment of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, who has a demonstrated history of 

ties to special-interest groups, has fought against the very agency he may head, and has worked 

at cross purposes for healthy communities and a healthy environment. 

Sincerely, 

Arizona Interfaith Power & Light 

Arkansas Interfaith Power & Light 

Creation Justice Ministries 

Delaware Interfaith Power & Light 

Disciples Center for Public Witness 

Earth Ministry 

Georgia Interfaith Power & Light 

Green Chalice Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) 

Hazan 

Interfaith Power & Light (DC.MD.NoVA) 
572 

Iowa Interfaith Power & Light 

Kentucky Interfaith Power & Light 

Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns 

Massachusetts Interfaith Power & Light 

National Council of Churches USA 

New York Interfaith Power & Light 

Oklahoma Interfaith Power & Light 

Pennsylvania Interfaith Power & Light 

Rhode Island Interfaith Power & Light 

Sojourners 

Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment (Roman Catholic) 

Unitarian Universalist Service Committee 

Vermont Interfaith Power & Light 

Wisconsin Interfaith Power & Light 

Young Evangelicals for Climate Action 
573 

January 16,2017 

Dear Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and members of the Senate Environment and Public 

Works Committee: 

As former heads of state environmental protection agencies, we have had the honor- and the 

responsibility- of ensuring that our states' residents enjoy clean air, safe water, and access to 

conservation land. We write to express our views on the nomination of Scott Pruitt to be Administrator 

of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA}- and thank the Committee for this 

opportunity. 

While we have worked under both Republican and Democratic Governors, reflect a range of political 

views, and come from diverse states, we share a common concern about Mr. Pruitt's nomination. His 

record, particularly as a litigator against many EPA rules, causes us to question whether he: 1) 

appropriately respects science-based decision making, and 2) understands the important role that EPA 

must play in the "cooperative federalism" model that undergirds our nation's environmental laws. 

Respect for Science 

As heads of state environmental protection agencies, all of us have had to make difficult judgment calls. 

Good science must be the touchstone for those and all regulatory decisions. The fundamental mission 

of protecting public health, safety, and the environment requires that science not be ignored and that 

regulatory decisions build on the best available data and rigorous analysis. 

Based on his record, it appears that Mr. Pruitt does not share this view. One example which troubles us 

greatly is his legal challenge to EPA's finding in 2009 that greenhouse gases endanger public health and 

welfare. In this lengthy finding, the EPA reviewed the extensive scientific literature, including reports 

on climate change issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, established by the 

United Nations, which synthesizes the work of thousands of scientists}, the U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program (CCSP, a Bush administration body of 13 federal agencies that issued 21 reports on climate 

change}, and the National Research Council (NRC, the research arm of the National Academy of 

Sciences). All of these bodies affirmed that climate change is occurring and that the primary cause is 

fossil fuel combustion. EPA also relied upon multiple lines of additional evidence that all point to the 

same conclusion. 

While this finding was wholly unremarkable from a science perspective, it provided the foundation for a 

number of regulations to reduce emissions from various greenhouse gas sources. It also inspired legal 

challenges from the oil and gas industry in concert with Attorney General Pruitt. 

Despite the thorough record supporting this conclusion (and the overwhelming consensus of scientists), 

in an unsuccessful lawsuit, Attorney General Pruitt and others argued that this finding was "arbitrary 

and capricious." The primary argument he advanced is that EPA should not have relied upon the 

multiple reports issued by the IPCC and other scientific bodies, and that there was too much lingering 

uncertainty to draw any hard conclusions about climate change. 

We find this deeply troubling. EPA did what any reasonable science-based agency would have donereview the scientific literature to determine whether the most credible experts on the subject had 

arrived at a consensus, and perform its own independent review to determine whether the consensus 

view was supported by verifiable, replicable evidence. The fact that Attorney General Pruitt attacked 
574 

this finding suggests a lack of understanding as to how environmental protection agencies make sciencebased decisions or, even worse, an inclination to set science aside when the outcome is at odds with his 

predetermined political point of view. 

The Role of Federal and State Regulators 

Attorney General Pruitt has often justified his many lawsuits against EPA as an effort to protect states' 

rights against EPA overreaching. 

As state regulators, we are justifiably proud of the work that our agencies perform. However, we also 

understand that there is a need for regulation at the federal level, and we see EPA as our partner in the 

important work of protecting environmental public health and ecosystem vitality. For example, 

pollutants do not know or respect state borders, yet states have limited ability to reduce air and water 

pollution that emanate from other states. Thus, federal regulation is necessary at a minimum to address 

the problem of interstate air and water pollution, put in place national standards that prevent a race to 

the bottom of environmental protection, and help to create a level playing field in which all states enjoy 

the benefits of clean water, air and land and pay their fair share of pollution control costs. We also 

have learned first-hand that states alone often do not have the resources to independently address the 

complex environmental challenges we all face. By sharing scientific and technical resources among the 

states and federal government, we can reduce the cost and increase the effectiveness of states' 

pollution control efforts. EPA plays a critical role in supporting the states by coordinating these 

important state/federal environmental protection efforts. 

We are concerned that Mr. Pruitt does not seem to appreciate this critical role that EPA plays. In fact, 

he has flied multiple lawsuits seeking to stop EPA from addressing interstate air pollution. For example, 

he led the fight against the cross-state air pollution rule, which was rejected on a 6-2 vote at the 

Supreme Court. Similarly, he unsuccessfully challenged the regional haze rule, which seeks to ensure 

that our national parks, monuments, and most pristine lands are not compromised by interstate air 

pollution. He also challenged federal rules that create minimum standards, such as the Mercury and Air 

Taxies rule which sought to ensure that approximately forty percent of lagging coal plants met the same 

emission control standards as the other sixty percent. 

Rather than EPA acting as our partner in state-led efforts to ensure clean air and water for our residents, 

we fear that an EPA under Mr. Pruitt would undermine the rules that help to make sure that our state 

regulations are successful. 

For all these reasons, we respectfully recommend that this Committee reject Mr. Pruitt's nomination. 

Sincerely, 

Linda S. Adams 

Former Secretary 

California Environmental Protection Agency 

Winston H. Hickox 

Former Secretary 

California Environmental Protection Agency 
575 

Alan C. Llloyd 

Former Secretary 

California Environmental Protection Agency 

Daniel Esty 

Former Commissioner 

Conecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection 

Gary Gill 

Former Deputy Director for Environmental Health 

Hawaii Department of Health 

Robert M. Summers, Ph.D. 

Former Secretary 

Maryland Deparment of the Environment 

Robert W. Golledge, Jr. 

Former Commissioner 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 

Kenneth Kimmell 

Former Commissioner 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 

Joe Martens 

Former Commissioner 

New York Department of Environmental Conservation 

Dick Pedersen 

Former Director 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

Deborah Markowitz 

Former Secretary 

Vermont Agency of Natural Resources 

Jay Manning 

Former Director 

Washington Department of Ecology 

Ted Sturdevant 

Former Director 

Washington Department of Ecology 
576 

January 17,2017 

Dear Senator, 

We the undersigned health professionals and members of health and public health 

organizations call on you to reject the nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General 

Scott Pruitt to be the next EPA Administrator. 

The EPA is responsible for implementing the laws that protect our nation's air, water, and 

climate. Its work is critical to improving Americans' health and saving lives. Yet Mr. Pruitt 

has shown himself to be openly hostile to the EPA's mission of environmental and health 

protection. In fact, his own website calls him "a leading advocate against the EPA's activist 

agenda." As Oklahoma Attorney General, Mr. Pruitt: 

Worked to undermine the EPA's vital contributions to public health: 

• Sued the EPA to halt the Regional Haze Rule that helps protect us from ozone, a 

dangerous air pollutant that causes irreversible lung damage. Yet the American 

Lung Association's 2016 "State of the Air" report gave all Oklahoma counties 

surveyed an "F" for ozone levels and found that the number of high ozone days had 

increased in most counties compared to 2010-2012. 

• Sued the EPA to weaken the Waters of the U.S. Rule, which protects one-third of the 

sources of surface water that people drink. 

• Sued the EPA to halt the Mercury and Air Taxies Standards that reduce air pollution 

from coal- and oil-fired power plants rule. Mercury is a neurological toxin that 

causes brain damage in developing fetuses and children. 

Sought to undercut protections from climate change: 

• Promoted inaccurate and dangerous misinformation about climate change. Pruitt 

wrote, for example, "Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of 

global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind." This is untrue. An 

overwhelming scientific consensus upholds that climate change is real, is happening 

now, and that human activity plays a significant role. 

• Sued to overturn the EPA's scientific "endangerment" finding that carbon dioxide 

and other heat-trapping air pollutants are harmful to human health and well-being. 

• Sued to block the EPA from setting limits on carbon dioxide emissions from power 

plants, the nation's largest source of this climate change-accelerating pollution. 

Served as an instrument of the oil and gas industry: 

• As a public official, signed and sent letters drafted by industry lawyers and lobbyists 

to the Environmental Protection Agency, the Interior Department and even 

President Obama. According to the New York Times, Pruitt took one such letter and, 

after changing just 3 7 words in the 1,0 16-word draft, copied it onto his state 

government letterhead and sent it to Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator. 
577 

• Was investigated by the New York Times as part of an "unprecedented, secretive 

alliance" with large fossil fuel companies. 

• Received more than $300,000 during his state office candidacy from the fossil fuel 

industry. 

• The laws and standards that protect the environment are essential to the health of 

all Americans. The office of EPA Administrator must be held by someone who will 

defend the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the climate we live in. Yet Mr. 

Pruitt has shown by his views and actions that he is willing to sacrifice the 

environment and endanger human lives. 

Given the severity of that threat, and in accordance with our responsibility as 

healthcare professionals and allies, we call on Congress to reject Scott Pruitt's 

nomination to lead the EPA. 

Signed, 

Alaska 

Hans U Tschersich, MD. Kodiak 

JohnS. S. Sonin, PT. Juneau 

Marianne Mills, MSW. Juneau 

Michael Glasheen, Kodiak 

N. Burrows, Anchorage 

Sarah Kehoe PA-C, PA. Talkeetna 

Susan Vogt, Fairbanks 

Alabama 

David L. Smith, MD. Spanish Fort 

Ginger Carter, Decatur 

Lawrence Holland, PhD. Huntsville 

Ralph Timberlake, Huntsville 

Sandra Arapoudis, Rhodos 

Arkansas 

john Covey, EMT. Marianna 

Judy McKinney, Holiday Island 

Keith Runion, PhD. Little Rock 

Shearle Furnish, PhD. Little Rock 

Tracey Ahring, Dennard 

Walter Boyd, Van Buren 

Arizona 

Eve Shapiro, MD. Tucson 

Mary Ann Graffagnino, MD. Tucson 

Frank Graffagnino, MD. Tucson 

Albert Bechtel, Green Valley 

Alison Reichle, PhD. Tucson 

Allen Holloway, MD. Phoenix 

Amy Salvato, Tucson 

Angela Wojtowicz, ND. Tucson 

Ann Khambholja, Tucson 

Anna Binkiewicz, MD. Tucson 

Anne-Marie Treon, Phoenix 

Barbara Warren, MD. Tucson 

Bill Christie, Tucson 

Bobbie VandeGriff, Tucson 

Bonnie Hughes, RN. Scottsdale 

Carl Kanun, MD. Tucson 

Carl Freeman, MD. Tucson 

Carol Keck, RN. Tucson 

Carol Mitchell, RN. Tucson 

Carol Goerke, Tempe 

Catherine Williams, Tucson 

David Kessler, Phoenix 

Denise Romesburg, Phoenix 

Diane Kent, Phoenix 

Dianne Douglas, Phoenix 

Dona LaSchiava, Tucson 

Douglas Stuart, PhD. Tucson 

Eleanor Francis, Tubac 

Eric Ossowski, MD. Scottsdale 

Eric Vance, Phoenix 

Frank Wyse, Mesa 

Helen Greer, Tucson 

J V Stills, Litchfield Park 
578 

jane Webb, Green Valley 

janet Chase, RN. Sedona 

jerome Roth, Tempe 

jim Mcintosh, Tucson 

john Curtiss, MD. Tucson 

john Nickum, PhD. Fountain Hills 

joseph Reesha, Phoenix 

judith Castiano, Peoria 

Kaaren Zvonik, MD. Green Valley 

Karen Christian, OTR. Vail 

Kyle Schmierer, Phoenix 

Laurel Hieb, Flagstaff 

Linda jones, Sedona 

Linda Kane, Mesa 

Lois jordan, Tucson 

Louise Kligman, MSW. Tucson 

Mansur johnson, Tucson 

Marian Baker Gierlach, RD. Pearce 

Mark Hayduke Grenard, Phoenix 

Mary Gresham, RN. Tucson 

Melvin Bautista, Phoenix 

Michael Kirkby, Toronto 

Michael And Kathleen Shores, Tempe 

Nancy Godwin, Tucson 

Natalie Houghton, Prescott 

Pamela Kielbowicz, FNP. Scottsdale 

Pamela Ensign, Tucson 

Patricia Always, Sun City 

Patrick O'Brien, Mesa 

Quintin Ortiz, Tucson 

Randall Bash, Scottsdale 

Robert Orford, MD. Fountain Hills 

Ruth Wootten, MSW. Tempe 

Sara Fisch, LPN. Scottsdale 

Sereta Robinson, PhD. Tucson 

Sharon McDonough-Means, MD. Tucson 

Teresa Wall, MPH. Mesa 

Terry Tedesco-Kerrick, Phoenix 

Timothy Fagan, MD. TUCSON 

Tracy Cole, Glendale 

Velda Smith, NP. Sun Lakes 

California 

Christine Evelyn, MD. La Canada 

Flintridge 

Jamie Solow, PhD. Culver City 

Edward Fisher, Pasadena 

Richard Dawson, Los Angeles 

Mark Klein, MD. Santa Rosa 

Nancy Marling, Livermore 

Arnd Martin Herz, MD. Oakland 

Anne McCammon, MD. La jolaa 

judith Murphy, MD. Portola Valley 

Thomas Newman, MD. San Carlos 

Richard And Carolyn Rosenstein, MD. Lm 

Angeles 

Robert Gould, MD. San Francisco 

Helen Loeser, MD. San Francisco 

A Haley, FNP. Camp Connell 

A Bonvouloir, Sunnyvale 

Abigail Bates, Los Angeles 

Alice Stek, MD. Venice 

Alice Neuhauser, Manhattan Beach 

Alanna Farrar, Vista 

Amber Coverdale Sumrall, Soquel 

Andrea Bonnett, Altadena 

Andrew Frey, PhD. Pasadena 

Andrew Lee, South San Francisco 

Andy Tomsky, San Marcos 

Angel Portillo, Pasadena 

Angie Bray, Venice 

Anita Coolidge, Cardiff 

Anje' Waters, Grass Valley 

Anna Steiner, MPH. Oakland 

Anne Simons, MD. San Francisco 

Anne Swanson, PhD. Campbell 

Anne Corrigan, San Diego 

Anne Cowden, Santa Rosa 

Anne Gordon, Los Angeles 

Anthony Montapert, Ventura 

Antonio Pierola, OTR. Alhambra 

Arleen Whitmore, San Leandro 

Armando Gomez, Santa Rosa 

Art Goldberg, Berkeley 

Arthur Delgadillo, Lakewood 

Ashley Lewis, Fairfax 

Ayesha Gill, PhD. Oakland 

Barbara Scheinman, LCSW. Mission Viejo 

Barbara Witney, LCSW. Emeryville 

Barbara Bennigson, Palo Alto 

Barbara King, Los Angeles 

Barrie Stebbings, Stinson Beach 
579 

Barry Kaufman, Burbank 

Ben Ruwe, Felton 

Bernard Offen, Rohnert Park 

Betty Murphy, Long Beach 

Betty Winholtz, Morro Bay 

Beverly Farr, Goleta 

Beverly johnson, Hesperia 

Blanche Korfmacher, LCSW. San 

Francisco 

Bob Rosenberg, DDS. Kentfield 

Bob Saxon,FortBragg 

Bonnie Kohleriter, DSW. Alamo 

Bonnie Long, LMT. Long Beach 

Bonnie Breckenridge, San Diego 

Brad Nelson, Oxnard 

Bradley Monash, MD. Mill Valley 

Brian Boortz, Los Gatos 

Bridgett Heinly, San Diego 

Bruce Bekkar, MD. Del Mar 

Bruce Grohman, Santa Cruz 

C G, San Diego 

Caitlin Miller, RN. Oakland 

Camille Gilbert, Santa Barbara 

Carl Carl, San Francisco 

Carla Davis, Corte Madera 

Carmen Delio Buono, San jose 

Carol Patton, Kensington 

Carol Gold, Fairfax 

Carol Rowland, Creston 

Carol Gordon, PhD. Los Angeles 

Carol McMahon, Placerville 

Carol Berghen, San Francisco 

Carol Wiley, Victorville 

Carol Ban ever, Los Angeles 

Carol Cross, Redwood City 

Caroline Good, Sherman Oaks 

Carolyn Shuman, MD. San Francisco 

Caryn Molinelli, Ojai 

Casee Maxfield, Los Angeles 

Catherine Walsh, PhD. Northridge 

Catherine Lou dis, RN. San Anselmo 

Catherine George, Napa 

Cathy Ziska, Carlsbad 

Cecile Leneman, Berkeley 

Cecilia Brown, PA. Oakland 

Celeste Anacker, LMT. Santa Barbara 

Celeste Hong, Los Angeles 

Chandra Stephens, PhD. Sebastopol 

Chantal Hildebrand, MPH. Oakland 

Charlene Root, Whittier 

Charles Murphy, MD. Ventura 

Charles Langelier, MD. Pacifica 

Charles Wolfe, Sylmar 

Charles Hochberg, Philo 

Cherie Connick, Crescent City 

Cheryl Tchir, Redondo Beach 

Chester Gabriel, Cupertino 

Chip Phillips, Los Angeles 

Chris Brazis, PT. San Francisco 

Christa Neuber, West Hollywood 

Christel Uittenbogaart, MD. Malibu 

Christie Brown, Barstow 

Christina Nillo, West Hollywood 

Christine Tobey, Los Angeles 

Christopher D. Stanton, MD. Portola 

Christopher Lish, San Rafael 

Claudia Linhares, Alameda 

Claudia Greene, Oakland 

Clelia Corona, RN. Riverside, 

Cleo Masur, Clearlake 

Colleen Lobel, San Diego 

Corinne VanHouten, PhD. Sacramento 

Cristina Roberts, El Centro 

Crystal Silas, MD. Visalia 

D. Bradley, MD. Diablo 

Dale McKenna, Lompoc 

Danielle Rosenman, MD. Oakland 

Darrell Clarke, Pasadena 

Darren Frate, Los Angeles 

Dave Anderson, Berkeley 

David Drum, Los Angeles 

David Gardner, Santa Monica 

David Levy, Carlsbad 

David Saperia, MD. Santa Monica 

David Karchem, PhD. Chatsworth 

David Bezanson, PhD. San Bruno 

David Broadwater, Atascadero 

David Dexter, Mill Valley 

Dean Frick, San Francisco 

Deanna Knickerbocker, Santa Clara 

Debra Shapiro, MD. Burlingame 

Debra Lane, Fort Bragg 
580 

Denise Hal be, Sonoma 

Dennis Nousaine, MD. Volcano 

Dennis Allen, Santa Barbara 

Dennis Trembly, Los Angeles 

Dennis Ledden, Fiddletown 

Diana Madoshi, RN. Rocklin 

Diana Chapman Walsh, Redwood City 

Diane Berliner, Los Angeles 

Diane Olson, Santa Monica 

Diane Wolfe, MD. Sacramento 

Donna Carr, M.D., MD. Encinitas 

Donna Horn, PhD. Mountain View 

Douglas Wilson, MD. Napa 

Dudley And Candace Campbell, Valley 

Glen 

Edh Stanley, Sacramento 

Edith Ogella, Santa Barbara 

Edith Drobny, LMT. Los Altos 

Edith Bruce, El Cerrito 

Elaine Weihman, Sacramento 

Eleanor Luce, MD. Oakland 

Eleanor Cohen, Oakland 

Elizabeth Watts, Richmond 

Elizabeth Colon, Santa Barbara 

Elizabeth Adan, Carmichael 

Elizabeth Bastach, Aptos 

Elizabeth Sawyer-Cunningham, Altadena 

Ellen Koivisto, San Francisco 

Emil Reisman, Encino 

Eric Straatsma, Windsor 

Erik Schnabel, San Francisco 

Erika Price, MD. San Francisco 

Ernest Goitein, Atherton 

Esther Levy, Sherman Oaks 

Eugene Majerowicz, PhD. View Park 

Faith Strailey, Quincy 

Florence Assalit, Monterey 

Forrest Hopping, Fresno 

Frank & Coralee Poppie, Monterey Park 

Frank B. Anderson, San Pedro 

Fredrick Seil, MD. Berkeley 

G Caviglia, Morgan Hill 

Gabriel Lautaro, Oakland 

Gail Lee, RD. San Francisco 

Gail Camhi, Novato 

Gail McMullen, Los Angeles 

Gail Roberts, Tecate 

Gaile Carr, RN. Mount Shasta 

Galatea King, MPH. Oakland 

Gary Huffaker, MD. Riverside 

Gene Burke, ND. Woodland Hills 

George Sage, Santa Rosa 

George M. Lewis, PhD. Los Osos 

Gerald McKelvey, LPN. Manteca 

Gerald Mills, Yucaipa 

Gerald Shaia, Sun Valley 

Gerald Dickinson, Davis 

Geraldine May, Creston 

Gilda Fusilier, Sacramento 

Gina Gatto, Castro Valley 

Gladys Bransford, Cobb 

Gloria Maldonado, Redwood City 

Grace Van Thillo, San Diego 

Greg Denari, MD. Saratoga 

Greta Henderickson, Sacramento 

Gus Van Hoorn, San Pedro 

Guy Zahller, Aptos 

Guy Cargulia, San Diego 

Helen Pitton, Cambria 

Helene Beddingfield, RN. Fair Oaks 

Howard Moore, San Diego 

Hugh Moore, RN. Los Angeles 

Ila Keiper, San jose 

Irving Paul Ackerman, MD. Los Angeles 

J. Christine Schneider, MD. Nicasio 

jack Milton, PhD. Davis 

jack McClain, Sacramento 

jacob Davis, Sonoma 

Jade Scileppi, LAC. San Francisco 

jade Scileppi, Medical Student. San 

Francisco 

james Brown, Los Angeles 

james McCammon, PhD. La jolla 

james And Leslee McPherson, San Mateo 

jan Salas, Santa Cruz 

jane Koopman, MD. Scotts Valley 

jane Wallace, RN. Monterey Park 

jane Engelsiepen, Carpinteria 

jane Edwards, La Palma 

janet Kennington, Los Angeles 

jason Fish, Modesto 

jay jones, PhD. La Verne 
581 

Jean Cheesman, Santa Barbara 

jean Pouteau, MD. Vacaville 

Jean Rabovsky, PhD. El Cerrito 

jean Mont-Eton, San Francisco 

Jean F Molinari, San Pedro 

jeanette Schneider, MD. Bishop 

jeannie Pollak, Oxnard 

jeff Gee, MD. Daly City 

jeff Dorer, Los Angeles 

jeffery Garcia, Mendocino 

Jeffrey jenkins, DrPH. Diamond Bar 

Jeffrey Hurwitz, San Francisco 

jenny England, San Carlos 

jeremy Spencer, Pacifica 

jerry Peavy, Chico 

jerry Persky, )D. Santa Monica 

jerry Abajian, MD. Napa 

jerry Hokanson, MD. Walnut Creek 

jessica Wolfe, Sebastopol 

jill B., San Francisco 

jillinda Mills, Oakdale 

jinx Hydeman, Trabuco Canyon 

joan Sitnick, Encino 

joan Andersson, JD. Topanga 

joan Bazar, PhD. Santa Clara 

joan Walker, Bishop 

jo-Ann Work, Walnut Creek 

joanna Katz, Berkeley 

joanne Tenney, Escondido 

Jodi Rowe, PhD. West Hills 

joe Buhowsky, San Ramon 

Joe Futterer, Topanga 

joel Isaacson, PhD. Berkeley 

John Steponaitis, San Francisco 

John Clark, San Diego 

john Goldenring, MD. Oceanside 

john Grula, PhD. Pasadena 

john Oliver, Los Angeles 

john Pasqua, Escondido 

John H. Anderson, San Diego 

Jon Anderholm, Cazadero 

Jon Longsworth, Aptos 

jon Bazinet, San Lorenzo 

jon Boyden, Long Beach 

jon Grutman, Los Angeles 

jonathan Lehrman, MD. Camino 

Jonathan Day, Laguna Beach 

jorge De Cecco, Ukiah 

josephine Polifroni, Danville 

Joyce Banzhaf, Grass Valley 

Jud Woodard, Sutter Creek 

judith Butts, RN. Mountain View 

judith Smith, Oakland 

Julia Vetrie, Canyon Country 

julie Ostoich, Sacramento 

Julie Smith, Los Osos 

Julie May, Los Angeles 

K Krupinski, LMT. Los Angeles 

K R, San Francisco 

K. Cook, La Habra 

Karen Berger, Montrose 

Karen Sanders, LCSW. Sonoma 

Karen jacques, PhD. Sacramento 

Karen Fitzgerald, San Francisco 

Karin Hoad, Coronado 

Karl Koessel, Mckinleyville 

Karla Devine, Manhattan Beach 

Katherine Schaff, DrPH. San Francisco 

Katherine Forrest, MD. Mountain View 

Katherine Nolan, Cupertino 

Kathleen Helmer, West Hills 

Kathleen Nichols, San jose 

Kathleen Hallahan, San Diego 

Kathy OBrien, Redway 

Kathy Dervin, MPH. Berkeley 

Kelly Peterson, Pacific Palisades 

Ken Win drum, Los Angeles 

Kenneth Miller, Topanga 

Kent Minault, Sherman Oaks 

Kevin Branstetter, Lotus 

Kevin Wightman, Sylmar 

Kiilani Ocean, Encinitas 

Kirston Koths, PhD. El Cerrito 

Kristen Lowry, Vacaville 

Kristina Wolf, Walnut Creek 

Kurt Cruger, Long Beach 

L Nelson, Morgan Hill 

Lana Tilley, MPH. Oakland 

Lani Miller, MD. Palm Springs 

Larry Daniell, San Jose 

Laura Buckley, MPH. Oakland 

Laura Herndon, Burbank 
582 

Laura Smiley, Riverside 

Lauren Murdock, Santa Barbara 

Lawrence Lipkind, DDS. San Francisco 

Leigh Slater, MD. Santa Rosa 

Len Lehmann, Portola Valley 

Leslie Spoon, Los Osos 

Leslie Klein, DO. Los Angeles 

LESLIE SHERIDAN, Clearlake 

Lib be Madsen, ACSW. Laytonville 

Li-hsia Wang, MD. Berkeley 

Lila Sheira, MPH. San Francisco 

Lili Farhang, MPH. Oakland 

Linda Helland, MPH. Ukiah 

Linda Whetstine, Poway 

Linda L Smith, Carmel 

Lindsay Mugglestone, Berkeley 

Lisa Hammermeister, Granada Hills 

Lisa Selby, Santa Rosa 

Lisa McCown, Alta Lorna 

Lisa bette Brinkman, Santa Barbara 

Liz Ibarra, Petaluma 

Lorraine Lowry, Vacaville 

Lorretta Marcel, San Francisco 

Louis Vega, Forest Knolls 

Louise Schwartz, JD. Los Angeles 

Lynn Franks, Sacramento 

Lynn Camhi, Petaluma 

Lynne Colvig, Thousand Palms 

Marc Silverman, Los Angeles 

Margaret Fish, PhD. Boonville 

Margaret De Mott, Sacramento 

Margaret Babcock, Walnut Creek 

Margarita Haugaard, San Diego 

Marguerite Shuster, PhD. Sierra Madre 

Maria Bustamante, Albany 

Maria Cardenas, Azusa 

Maria Montag, El Segundo 

Maria Arevalo, Modesto 

Marian Cruz, Hollister 

Marian Sedio, Valley Center 

Marianne Gerson, MD. Portola Valley 

Marianne Rehfeld, Redwood City 

Marisa Strange, Long Beach 

Marita Mayer, JD. San Anselmo 

Marjorie Streeter, Alameda 

Mark Feldman, Santa Rosa 

Mark Rudningen, Citrus Heights 

Mark Reback, Los Angeles 

Mark Gotvald, Pleasant Hill 

Mark And Susan Glasser, JD. Los Angeles 

Marla Crites, Chico 

Marsha Maxwell, Walnut Creek 

Marsha Lowry, El Sobrante 

Martha Larsen, San Francisco 

Martha Knobler, LMT. Berkeley 

Martin Horwitz, San Francisco 

Martin Victor, Burbank 

Martin B Friedman, PhD. Berkeley 

Marvin Cohen, Walnut Creek 

Mary Hicklin, San Diego 

Mary Strauss, Oakland 

Maryann LaNew, San Clemente 

Maryellen Redish, Palm Springs 

Mathias Van Thiel, PhD. Hayward 

Melinda Burgess, Mission Hills 

Mel odie Chrislock, Carmel 

Merilie Robertson, Canoga Park 

Mha Atma S Khalsa, DC. Los Angeles 

Michael Gold, Studio City 

Michael Hogan, LAC. Del Mar 

Michael Geschwind, MD. San Francisco 

Michael Sullivan, PT. San Diego 

Michael Mills, San Francisco 

Michael Darling, Frazier Park 

Michael Garitty, Nevada City 

Michael Mitsuda, Fremont 

Michael Sarabia, Stockton 

Michelle Orengo-McFarlane, MD. El 

Sobrante 

Michelle Loya-Talamantes, MPH. San 

Francisco 

Milton Carrigan, NP. San Luis Obispo 

Mindi White, MD. Los Angeles 

Moktar Salama, PhD. Fountain Valley 

Mona Talamantes, South Pasadena 

Mynka Draper, MD. Los Angeles 

Nan Singh-Bowman, Ben Lomond 

Nancy Kelly, JD. Oakland 

Nancy Iverson, MD. San Francisco 

Nancy Gutierrez, Palm Desert 

Nancy Eichler, Albany 

Nancy Hiestand, Davis 
583 

Nancy Barcellona, Los Angeles 

Natalie Combs, MD. San Francisco 

Nicholas Lenchner, Santa Rosa 

Nick Marling, Elk Grove 

Nicole Fountain, Fremont 

Niki Rahimi, Concord 

Nj Carlile, Guadalupe 

Norma Kutzer, Santa Barbara 

0. Lewis, Los Angeles 

Oliver Seely, PhD. Lakewood 

Pamela Hazen, Cardiff By The Sea 

Pamela Richmond, Emeryville 

Pat Blackwell-Marchant, Castro Valley 

Patricia Savage, Mammoth Lakes 

Patricia Zylius, Santa Cruz 

Patricia Byrnes, Mill Valley 

Patricia Gracian, San Diego 

Patrick Craig, Guerneville 

Patrick Williams, Sunnyvale 

Patrisha Hodgman, LMT. Lancaster 

Patty Linder, San jose 

Paul Vesper, Berkeley 

Paula Berry, jD. Los Angeles 

Paula Hill, LMT. Santa Cruz 

Paula Krejcik, Sonora 

Paulette Doulatshahi, Los Angeles 

Peter Barnett, MD. Tahoe City 

Philip Lefcourt, Pasadena 

Phillip Cripps, Cathedral City 

R. Zierikzee, San Francisco 

R. Marilyn Wilson, RD. Walnut Creek 

Rachel Wolf, Santa Cruz 

Randy Vogel, Oakland 

Ravid Raphael, DC. Santa Barbara 

Ray Bustos, Fullerton 

Regina Flores, Lake Elsinore 

RENATE DOLIN, Malibu 

Rhetta Alexander, Van Nuys 

Ria Tanz Kubota, RN. El Sobrante 

Rich Moser, Santa Barbara 

Richard Blakemore, Mariposa 

Richard Yurman, Oakland 

Rita Rita Webber, LPN. Valley Village 

Rita An berg, RN. Union City 

Rob Seltzer, Malibu 

Robert Luke, Auburn 

Robert Hicks, Long Beach 

Robert Reed, Laguna Beach 

Robert Whitson, MD. Auburn 

Robert Sullivan, MD. Sacramento 

Robert Burk, NO. Los Angeles 

Robert McCombs, Arcata 

Robert Lappo, Tujunga 

Robert Forrest, NAPA 

Roberta Stern, Oakland 

Roderick Brown, San Diego 

Roger H. Harrell, PhD. Hermosa Beach 

Rolando Arango, Fairfield 

Romola Georgia, Palo Alto 

Ron Chicoine, Indio 

Ron Schmidt, San Francisco 

Ronald Bogin, El Cerrito 

Rosalind Bresnahan, San Bernardino 

Rosalind Tanenbaum, Sebastopol 

Rosemary Graham-Gardner, PhD. 

Manhattan 

Roslyn jones, Riverside 

Ruth Valdez, Medical Student. Aptos 

Ruth Charloff, Pomona 

S. Chapek, San Francisco 

Sanaz Kasravi, San Marcos 

Sara Satinsky, MPH. San Francisco 

Sarah Hall, PhD. Burbank 

Sarahi Rosas, Verdugo City 

Sean Cooke, MD. Sacramento 

Sharlene White, Oceanside 

Sharon Byers, Downey 

Sharon Borrege, Santa Cruz 

Sharon Lacy, DC. Sebastopol 

Sharon Torrisi, DVM. Morro Bay 

Sharon Paltin, MD. Laytonville 

Sharon Legenza, NP. Berkeley 

Sheela Alex, Encinitas 

Sheila Wyse, Sherman Oaks 

Shellee Davis, Cotati 

Sherrill Futrell, Davis 

Sherry Marsh, Oceanside 

Shoshanah McKnight, LMT. Ben Lomond 

Stacy Thompson, Alta Lorna 

Stacy Cornelius, Laguna Beach 

Stephen Carrillo, Albany 

Stephen Seagren, MD. La jolla 
584 

Stephen Rosenblum, PhD. Palo Alto 

Stephen Hutchinson, Glendale 

Steve Daniels, MD. Santa Barbara 

Steve Iverson, Newport Beach 

Steve Bush, Santa Rosa 

Steve Wozniak, Encinitas 

Steve Eklund, Salinas 

Stuart Oskamp, PhD. Claremont 

Sue Hilton, Arcata 

Susan Gray, )D. San Francisco 

Susan Toth, MPH. Berkeley 

Susan Perez, PhD. Oakland 

Susan High, Los Angeles 

Susan Brinchman, La Mesa 

Susan Goldberg, Glendale 

Susan Heidebrecht, Fresno 

Susan Porter, Pasadena 

Susan Walp, Pasadena 

Susan Yamagata, Chula Vista 

Suzanne Deerlyjohnson, Long Beach 

Suzanne Lande, RN. Sebastopol 

Sydney Vilen, Berkeley 

Tamara Matz, Los Angeles 

Tasha Boucher, LMT. Sherman Oaks 

Ted Fishman, PhD. San jose 

Teresa Sullivan, Los Angeles 

Theresa Corrigan, Sacramento 

Therese Ryan, Palmdale 

Thomas Gillespie, La Mirada 

Thomas Conroy, Manhattan Beach 

Tia )a, San jose 

Tim Moore, LAC. Coarsegold 

Tim Barrington, San jose 

Timothy Taylor, PhD. Los Angeles 

Timothy johnston, San Francisco 

Tina Davis, Mill Valley 

Todd Fisk, San Diego 

Twikie Simms, Anaheim 

Twyla Meyer, Pomona 

Valencia Porter, MD. Carlsbad 

Valerie). Herr, PhD. Berkeley 

Valerie Schadt, Los Angeles 

Verna Bacon, LPN. Capitola 

Vic Warren, San Diego 

Vicki Maheu, San Diego 

Vicki & Rod Kastlie, NP. San Diego 

Victoria Erickson, Medical Student. Aptos 

Victoria Reiser, NP. Irvine 

Virginia Hilker, Redondo Beach 

Wallace !imura, Cupertino 

Wendy Bauer, San Francisco 

Wendy Eberhardt, MD. San Rafael 

William Briggs, Hermosa Beach 

Yossef Aelony, MD. RPV 

Yuka Persico, Simi Valley 

Yves Decargouet, Lucerne 

Colorado 

Alice Gustafson, Glenwood Springs 

Amy Dewitt, Wheat Ridge 

Annemarie Prairie, Boulder 

Arlee McLeod, Boulder 

Betty Miller, Elizabeth 

Bonnie Kenny, LAC. Lakewood 

Brady Hurley, Aspen 

Carla Behrens, Longmont 

Charlotte Alexandre, RN. Thornton 

Cindy Parker, MD. Salida 

Claudia Van Gerven, PhD. Boulder 

Connie Kreider, Colorado Springs 

Dale Ellis, Golden 

Darcy Dallin, Aurora 

David Inouye, PhD. Hotchkiss 

David Schultz, Aurora 

Dea Smith, Loveland 

Deborah Stucklen, Loveland 

Deborah Williams, Aurora 

Diane Vogelman, Edwards 

Donald Turken, MD. Cherry Hills Village 

Donald Paden, Loveland 

Dorothy Day Ciarlo, PhD. Boulder 

William Butler, EMT. Evergreen 

Nancy Butler, Evergreen 

Eleanor Roehl. Estes Park 

Floyd Stephens, MD. Fort Collins 

Georgia Mattingly, Longmont 

Harrison B. Albert, PhD. Boulder 

Harry Corsover, PhD. Englewood 

Heidi Baruch, RN. Boulder 

james Carr, Estes Park 

)ames A Clark jr, Colorado Springs 

Jamie Harris, Broomfield 
585 

jan Zech, LPN. Bayfield 

Janet Brazill, Colorado Springs 

Janette Letson, Denver 

Jean Gore, Boulder 

Jessica Williams, MD. Golden 

Jessica Mitchell, Highlands Ranch 

joan Glasser, Boulder 

John Mozer, PhD. Aurora 

John Hoffmann, Carbondale 

Karen Anderson, LPC. Rollinsville 

Karen Dike, RN. Longmont 

Karina Black, OTR. Boulder 

Kaye Fissinger, Longmont 

Kenneth Rowe, Loveland 

Kristina Snyder, Lakewood 

Lauren DeAlleaume, MD. Denver 

LeRoy Moore, PhD. Boulder 

Linda Younker, LPN. Denver 

Linda Mckibben, RN. Broomfied 

Linda johnson, Pueblo West 

Lisa H, Colorado Springs 

Lorraine Kirk, PhD. Nederland 

Lynne Glaeske, Denver 

M. Elizabeth Me Quie, Louisville 

Maggie Schafer, Boulder 

Manny Garcia, Denver 

Mark Shinkle, PhD. Loveland 

Marta Wilcox, Colorado Springs 

Martha W D Bushnell, PhD. Louisville 

Mary Smith, Hotchkiss 

Mary Keithler, PhD. Englewood 

Megan Faber, Denver 

Michael Parsons, Aguilar 

Michele Barnard, Lafayette 

Mick Curth, Aurora 

Myrna Castaline, Boulder 

Nancy Winter, Centennial 

Pamala Wright, Pueblo 

Patricia Kay Youngson, RN. Boulder 

Rachel Gaffney, MD. Conifer 

Richard Creswell, Lakewood 

Richard Grossman, MD. Bayfield 

Rick Linsky, Centennial 

Ron Flax, Boulder 

Ronald Harden, DDS. Loveland 

S Harrell, Fort Collins 

Sara Avery, Lafayette 

Sharon Baker, Palmer Lake 

Sherry Stockert, Englewood 

Sheryl Sussbauer, Longmont 

Silvana Borrelli, Denver 

Susan Brown, Evergreen 

Susan Dean,Denver 

Terrance Shoemaker, Parker 

Connecticut 

Emily Fine, MD. Milford 

Athena Coroneos, LMT. Norwalk 

Beth Angel, East Hampton 

Christine Fluet, Columbia 

Dan Wilson, Middletown 

Deborah Dahlgren, East Hartford 

Don Alexander, Torrington 

Doris Munger, New Canaan 

Elke Hoppenbrouwers, East Haven 

Ellaine Lurie Janicki, PT. West Haven 

Erna Luering. Norwich 

Francine Ungaro, )D. Southington 

Francis Mastri, LPC. West Haven 

George Smart, Guilford 

Ginnie Preuss, Bridgeport 

Harold Meyer )r, Washington Depot 

Irene O'Day, RN. Clinton 

jane Latus, Canton 

jennifer Wang, Storrs Mansfield 

john Strauss, MD. New Haven 

john W. Gallup, MD. Salisbury 

Maggie Alston Claud, Hartford 

Margaret Aldinger, RN. Groton 

Marvin Zimmerman, MD. Branford 

Mary Guillet, PhD. Winsted 

Maureen Wulf, Hamden 

Meghan Wilson, MPH. Cheshire 

Ocean Pellett, Waterford 

Pat Preziosi, PhD. Hamden 

Patrick Vingo, Norwalk 

Pedro-Martin De Clet, Branford 

Richard Koda, Ridgefield 

Richard Shook, DVM. Niantic 

Royal Graves, Wethersfield 

Sarah Donavan, Easton 

Shannon Capasso, New Haven 
586 

Stephanie C. Fox, JD. Bloomfield 

Susan Glantz, PhD. Madison 

District Of Columbia 

Alice Day, PhD 

Gail Gorlitz 

Ann L Ingram 

Catherine Thomasson, MD 

Evelyn Fraser 

Howard White 

Jane Ward, MD 

Katie Kroner, MSW 

Lida Skrzypczak 

Linda Ghelfi, Medical Student 

Michelle Solomon, MD 

Pamela Bacon 

Shireen Parsons 

Valerie Leonard 

Delaware 

Carol Collins, Dover 

Denis DellaLoggia, ACSW, Wilmington 

Ellen Wasfi, Dover 

Jared Cornelia, Wilmington 

Kate Jamal, Wilmington 

Kristine Cassar, Newark 

Nancy Fifer, Lewes 

Florida 

Cathey Falvo, MD. Delray Beach 

Judy Rosenblith, PhD. Miami 

Alexandra Gordon, Miami 

Alice Christy, Miami 

Amanda Mourant, Boca Raton 

Angie Rhinier, Fort Lauderdale 

Ankush Bansal, MD. West Palm Beach 

Ann Fonfa, Delray Beach 

Anne Morgan, MD. Palm Beach Gardens 

Audrey Sommer, Gainesville 

Babette Bruton, Gulfport 

Bob Litman, DrPH. Miami 

Brian Ainsley, Altamonte Springs 

Carol Ohlendorf, Bradenton 

Charlisa Arthur, Medical Student. 

Lakeland 

Cheryl Gregory, Plantation 

Chris Pilz, Parrish 

Christopher Benjamin, Largo 

Chuck Frank, PhD. Miami 

Colonel Meyer, North Port 

David Moynahan, MD. Crawfordville 

David Holmes, West Palm Beach 

David Neral, North Port 

David Leithauser, Deland 

David Arthur Weinstock, Davie 

Deborah L Born, Ocala 

Dennis Wonn, Sarasota 

Diana Ward, RN. Saint Petersburg 

Dolores Parra, Land 0 Lakes 

Donald Shaw, Saint Petersburg 

Donna Pemberton, Cocoa 

Doug Landau, Saint Petersburg 

Erik Haltre, Boca Raton 

Esther Garvett, Miami 

Fran Schmidt, PhD. Stuart 

Frank Mazuca, Lakeland 

Glenn & Edith Martin, Punta Gorda 

Hilary Capstick, Tallahassee 

Howard Kessler, MD. Panacea 

Jack Westman, MD. Madeira Beach 

Jackie Duvall, RN. Gulf Breeze 

James Stone, Santa Rosa Beach 

Janet Zinner, PhD. Sarasota 

Janet Robinson, Boca Raton 

Jeannette Hall, Port Charlotte 

Jill Kempton, Juno Beach 

Jim Loveland, Gulfport 

Joan Balfour. MSW. Boynton Beach 

John Kesich, Venice 

John Randall Johnson, DO. Largo 

Judi Linn, Weston 

Judith Peter, Port Charlotte 

Judith Martinez, Saint Augustine 

Julio C. Wilches, Aventura 

Karen Fleming, Sarasota 

Kathy Schneider, Naples 

Ken Bowman, Orlando 

Kimberly Huff, High Springs 

Kristo C, MD. Stuart 

Larry Lesser, Boynton Beach 

Laura Staples, Sarasota 

Lawrence M. Fishman, MD. Miami 
587 

Linda Darin, MPH. Seminole 

Linda Butler, Punta Gorda 

Liz Garratt, Saint Augustine 

Lorinda Price, MD. Tampa 

M S Dillon III, Coconut Grove 

Margaret Silver, RN. Atlantic Beach 

Margaret Murray, RN. Saint Cloud 

Maria Stoll, Miami 

Maria Fernandez, Orlando 

Marjorie Williams, Penney Farms 

Mark Werner, MD. Gainesville 

Mark Polsky, Hollywood 

Mary Gutierrez, Fort Walton Beach 

Mary Detrick, Clearwater 

Maureen Maguire, MD. Sarasota 

Michael Toomey, ACSW. West Palm 

Beach 

Michael Stella, Key West 

Michael LaGassey, Tampa 

Nell Thomas, Ormond Beach 

Nina Tatlock, Apollo Beach 

Norma Schatz, Sarasota 

Pat Rose, Largo 

Patricia McDonald, Winter Park 

Patricia Cooney, LCSW. Saint Petersburg 

Patricia DeLuca, PhD. Nokomis 

Patsy Shafchuk, New Port Richey 

Patti Martin, Spring Hill 

Rani Gereige, MD. Miami 

Rebecca Varner, RN. Saint Augustine 

Richard Rothstein, DMD. Lakewood 

Ranch 

Richard Hover, Bradenton 

Rina Mortazavi, Tampa 

Robin Montesano, RD. Punta Gorda 

Robyn Reichwer, Lake Worth 

Ronald Ankowski, Parrish 

Ronald H. Silver, CEP, Atlantic Beach 

Ruth Ann Wiesenthal-Gold, Palm Bay 

Ruthann Duval, Pensacola 

S Logan, Miami 

Sandra Boylston, Sanford 

Scott Finamore, Citrus Springs 

Sean Vennett, Tampa 

Susan Dorchin, Delray Beach 

Susan Linden, Palm Bay 

Susan Armistead, MD. Key Largo 

Suzanne Smither, Fort Lauderdale 

Suzanne Saunders, Saint Petersburg 

Sylvia Richey, Fort Myers 

Tammy Lettieri, PT. Coconut Creek 

Theresa Deery, LCSW. St Pete Beach 

Thomas Dahl, New Port Richey 

Thomas Washburn, MD. Fernandina 

Beach 

Timothy Lippert, Tampa 

Tina Gardner, jacksonville 

Vicki Anderson, jD. Hernando Beach 

William Claiborn, PhD. Venice 

Georfi!ia 

Albert And Mary joyce Dixon, MD. 

Hiawassee 

Aida Sui dan, MD. Atlanta 

Barry Heath, Hoschton 

Chris Williams, RN. Arnoldsville 

Deborah Cooper, Hiawassee 

Dina Franch, Atlanta 

Dr. Michael Collier, DDS. Oakwood 

Edward Stiles, Young Harris 

Elaine Eudy, East Point 

G. Robert Gore, PhD. Decatur 

Gary Ludi, MD. Roswell 

Laura Park, Lawrenceville 

Lavonne Otwell, Marietta 

Linda Bell, PhD. Decatur 

Linda Kennedy, Hiawassee 

Mara Mcmanus, Acworth 

Marco Pardi, Lawrenceville 

Mark Wolgin, Albany 

Michelle Maloney, Blairsville 

Nancy Greear, Helen 

Randall Smith, DDS. Valdosta 

Ruth Yurchuck, RN. Tucker 

Sarah Pallas, PhD. Atlanta 

Sue Harmon, Oakwood 

T Garmon, Dawsonville 

Thomas Lucas, MD. Fort Valley 

Tramania Allen, LPN. Conyers 

Alex 

~ 

Oshiro, Honolulu 
588 

Cathleen Dagher, Waialua 

Dr. Susan Caswell, PhD. Paauilo 

Juliet Pearson, Kailua 

K. Chung, RN. Honolulu 

Martha Martin, Paia 

Michele Nihipali, MPH. Hauula 

Myra Shepard, Kane'ohe 

Sarahlynn Bower, Lahaina 

Shari Grounds, Kailua 

Sheryl Gardner, MD. Mililani 

Thomas Reppun, MD. Honolulu 

Tia Pearson, Wahiawa 

Virginia Bennett, PhD. Honolulu 

Iowa 

Barbara And jim Dale, Decorah 

Brandi McCauley, Des Moines 

Charlene Ferguson, Otho 

David Damstrom, Spencer 

David Anderson, Fort Madison 

Dick Clark, Waukee 

Eloise Cranke, Des Moines 

Holly Kukkonen, Iowa City 

]ody Gibson, Des Moines 

Kathleen Voet, RN. Mason City 

Maxine Goodyear, Independence 

Melody Smith, Iowa City 

Patricia Fuller, RN. Council Bluffs 

Robert McNair, PhD. Boone 

Staci Stanton, Knoxville 

Trina Hawkins, Sioux City 

Wesley Struebing, Dubuque 

kli!.hQ 

Daniela Rossi, Pomezia (Roma) 

Daryl Pullen, Boise 

Elizabeth Bryant, PhD. Meridian 

jane Beattie, Ketchum 

janice Roberts, LMT. Sandpoint 

Melita Pepper, Post Falls 

Nancy Mertz, MSW. Coeur D Alene 

Ronald johnson, Post Falls 

Susan Dameron Cote-Eagle, RN. Kellogg 

Thomas Rogers, PhD. Eagle 

Thomas Rogers, PhD. Boise 

Thomas Rogers, Eagle 

Vickie Dearden, Idaho Falls 

.l!l.iw!.i§ 

Alice Mulberry, RD. Chicago 

Alene Shaull, Crystal Lake 

Alice Segal, Chicago 

Ann McCabe, Chicago 

Ann Siegel, Deerfield 

Anne Settanni, RN. Normal 

Arlene Zide, PhD. Chicago 

Aurora lnsurriaga, Chicago 

Barbara Sullivan, VMD. Arlington Heights 

Barbara Corcoran, Des Plaines 

Bill Brady, West Chicago 

Burton Steck, Chicago 

Carol Krohm, MD. Harvard 

Carol jurczewski, Riverside 

Carolyn Massey, Quincy 

Chris Law, Chicago 

Colin Kay, Tinley Park 

Craig Figtree, Chicago 

Cynthia Linton, Chicago 

Daniel Sheehan, Chicago 

David Lang, DO. Northbrook 

David Brodnax, PhD. Oak Park 

Dawn Albanese, Elk Grove Village 

Deb Christensen, Manteno 

Debra Gleason, Chicago 

Dennis Kreiner, Carpentersville 

Diane Vandiver, Bolingbrook 

Diane LaMagdeleine, Countryside 

Diane Steitz, Chicago 

Dixie Gutierrez, Taylor Springs 

Dolores C. Pi no, ]D. Morton Grove 

Donna Barrett, RN. Buffalo Grove 

Dori Cole, Wheaton 

E. Ralston, Rockford 

Ed Gould, Chicago 

Eileen Murphy, MD. Chicago 

Ellena Linsky, Rockford 

Emma Bradshaw, Lisle 

Erdmut Lerner, Evanston 

Erin Parish-Meyer, Bloomington 

Frank K. Thorp, MD. Palos Park 

Greg Stawinoga, South Holland 
589 

Ira Gerard, South Elgin 

Ivan Shils, MD. Dekalb 

J Rodriguez, Chicago 

)acqui Foster, Belleville 

James McConkey, Dekalb 

James Haedike, Berwyn 

Jay Futterman, MD. Highland Park 

Jill Paulus, Wheaton 

John Brna, MD. Chicago 

John Rolland, MD. Wilmette 

John Kavalunas, Village Of Lakewood 

Judith Collins, Pierson Station 

Judith Gardiner, PhD. Chicago 

Judy Krach, Hazel Crest 

Julie Griffith, Saint Charles 

Karen Brashears, Wheaton 

Kate Goetz, LCSW. Chicago 

Kate Harder, Glen Ellyn 

Kathy Michaelson, Rockton 

Kenneth Milhouse, Rockford 

Lana May, LMT. Mount Prospect 

Lana Schmitt, Machesney Park 

Laura Long, MD. Chicago 

Lauren Wagner, MD. Chicago 

Lawrence Malito, Palos Park 

Letitia Noel, PT. Chicago 

Lindsey Walters, West Peoria 

Lisa Valiente, MSW. Bolingbrook 

Lisa Udel, PhD. Jacksonville 

Lynn Morris, Chicago 

M C Kubiak, LMT. Bloomington 

Mair McNamara, Barrington 

Malcolm Hast, Wilmette 

Margaret Waltershausen, VMD. Urbana 

Margaret Hill, Grayslake 

Marianne Flanagan, Des Plaines 

Marlene Powers, Mount Prospect 

Mary Bennett, Chicago 

Maureen Verwiel, Chicago 

Michael Landess, jacksonville 

Mike Haaw, MD. Chicago 

Mike Dotson, Carterville 

Monica Regan, Homewood 

Nahiris Bahamon, MD. Chicago 

Nancy Mallory, Wheeling 

Natalie Vey, Naperville 

Nayeem Aslam, Villa Park 

Olive Hart, Chicago 

Pam Angelakos, Chicago 

Patricia Pruitt, Oak Park 

Peggy Schramm, Waukegan 

Rhita Lippitz, Evanston 

Robert Pancner, FNP. Darien 

Robert Linzmeier, )D. Palatine 

Robert Davidson, Franklin Park 

Robert Krueger, Chicago 

Robert E. Lerner, PhD. Evanston 

Ronald Smith, Riverside 

Sally Daniels, Wilmette 

Sara Schroeder, Des Plaines 

Saul Aguirre, Chicago 

Sergio Rivera, Chicago 

Sherri Sheftel, MPH. Highland Park 

Stephen Hapke, Riverwoods 

Steve Schueth, Chicago 

Steven Nelson, Crystal Lake 

Steven Nelson, Wasco 

Susan Fernandez, Chicago 

Tarek Hijaz, MD. Chicago 

Terry Clarbour, MD. Oak Park 

V Evan, PhD. Chicago 

Valerie Schweiss, RN. Sterling 

Walter Schmitt, Machesney Park 

Wyman Whipple, Dahinda 

Yvonne White, Kinmundy 

.I.n.!li.ima 

judy Klein, MD. Bloomington 

Linda Trippi, MD. Indianapolis 

Ann Frutkin, Indianapolis 

Bruce Hlodnicki, MD. Indianapolis 

Bryan Lilienkamp, Indianapolis 

Dagny Boebel, PhD. N Manchester 

Diane Winkler, Jasper 

Diane Pontius, Mishawaka 

Donna Heinlin, Evansville 

Elaine Sorensen, RN. Evanston 

Harvey Lyon, MSW. Beverly Shores 

James Jachimiak, PT. Franklin 

Jessica Cresseveur, PhD. New Albany 

Joanne Detlef, South Bend 

John Staunton, South Bend 
590 

john Blair, Evansville 

joyce Niksic, Hammond 

Karen Lozow, LMT. Bloomington 

Karen Felts, Noblesville 

KM Smith, EMT. Indianapolis 

Lana Eisenberg, PhD. Bloomington 

Marilyn Berling, ACSW. Indianapolis 

Marion Tidwell, Merrillville 

Nancy Newton, PhD. Bloomington 

Nancy Dickinson, Indianapolis 

Patricia Galbraith, RN. Evansville 

Patricia Chang, RN. West Lafayette 

Paul Eisenberg, PhD. Bloomington 

Ray Arnholt, Columbus 

Ricki Newman, Newburgh 

Stephen jay, MD. Indianapolis 

Tom Hougham, Trafalgar 

William Ryerson, Indianapolis 

William So bat, MD. Indianapolis 

Avis 

~ 

Deck, Andover 

Brad Higgs, Westmoreland 

Carol Neill, Overland Park 

Carolyn Chambers, Wichita 

Christina Meyer, Salina 

Daviann McClurg, Larned 

Gene Marsh, MD. Halstead 

jerry Haney, Wichita 

johnny Stroud, Wichita 

Kathe Garbrick, Manhattan 

Laurance Price, MD. Lawrence 

Mary Margaret Switlik, Wichita 

Nancy Twiss, Manhattan 

Natalie Cox, Lawrence 

Randy Kirkpatrick, Cherryvale 

Ronald Yeomans, MD. Overland Park 

Kentucky 

Bobbiejo Winfrey, Louisville 

Donna Blue, Dr PH. Lexington 

Elizabeth Butler, Henderson 

jan Garrett, PhD. Bowling Green 

Kiley Brown Newton, NP. Louisville 

M. Alice DeAngelis, Union 

Mary Hughes, Lexington 

Robert Daniel, Hopkinsville 

Ryan Riddle, Mount Vernon 

Susan Smith, Frankfort 

Louisiana 

Gene Sotile, Baton Rouge 

joe Stern, New Orleans 

Keanan McGonigle, Medical Student. New 

Orleans 

Linda Carroll, PhD. New Orleans 

Piper Burch, Slidell 

Yuana Blanke, River Ridge 

Massachusetts 

Barbara Cavalieri, PhD. Northampton 

Mike And Miriam Kurland, MPH. 

Williamsburg 

Robert Petersen, MD. Cambridge 

Ronald Pies, MD. Lexington 

Sybil Schlesinger, Natick 

Lynn Scheller, Newton 

Ira Helfand, MD. Leeds 

Mary Ellen Turner, ACSW. Bedford 

Bruce Nayowith, MD. Great Barrington 

Abigail Howes, Berkley 

Alan Papscun, Glendale 

Amy Gardner, MD. Cotuit 

Andrew Woitkoski, Pittsfield 

Anita De Felice, Framingham 

Ann Rosenkranz, Vineyard Haven 

Ann Eastman, PhD. Littleton 

Ann Trakadas, Grafton 

Austin Wertheimer, MD. Brookline 

Barbara Sullivan, RN. Peabody 

Barbara Mcgrath, Waltham 

Benno Friedman, Sheffield 

Beverly Hector-Smith, NP. Natick 

Beverly Goodell, North Adams 

Bonnie Gorman, RN. Quincy 

Bonnie Faith-Smith, Cambridge 

Brenda Troup, EMT. Bolton 

Bruce Hurter, MD. Wellfleet 

Carol Berkeley, LPN. Boxford 

Carol Walker, Winthrop 

Carole McAuliffe, Wellfleet 

Christine Gadbois, RN. Seekonk 
591 

Cornelia VanDer Ziel, MD. Brookline 

Dan DeGooyer, PhD. Somerville 

David Kulik, Carlisle 

Deborah Maia, PT. Conway 

Dempsey Hughes, MD. Somerville 

Don Lipsitt, MD. Cambridge 

Donald Maier, MD. Rockport 

Donald Williams, Somerville 

Douglas Smith, Sharon 

Eileen Sonnenberg, Brewster 

Elayne Feinsod, MD. Acton 

Elizabeth Coons, Brighton 

F Carr, Montague 

Frances Nolde, Boxborough 

Gail Needham, Northampton 

Gary Thaler, Revere 

Geoffrey Garrett, PhD. Worcester 

George Oleyer, JD. South Yarmouth 

Gregory Palermo, MD. Edgartown 

Greta Gundersen, Belchertown 

Harry & Joanne Castleman, RN. 

Weymouth 

Hilary Branch, MD. Springfiled 

james Keats, Springfield 

James K Hadcroft, Falmouth 

Janet Hirschhorn, LPN. Methuen 

jennifer Gitschier, Leicester 

jerald Ross, MPH. North Chelmsford 

jeremy Glass, Newton Center 

joel Rosen, MD. Northampton 

Jon Stewart, Ipswich 

jonathan Tholl, Needham 

JOSEPH MCCABE, MD. Needham 

judith Embry, Florida 

judith Herman, Concord 

Judy Wolter, FNP. Northfield 

judy Wisboro, Worcester 

Karin Hemmingsen, MD. Attleboro 

Kathleen McCabe, Boston 

Katrin Winterer, MSW. Winchester 

Kelly Larkin, PA. Longmeadow 

Ken Canty, )D. Dudley 

Laurel Facey, Millers Falls 

Laurie Robertson-Lorant, PhD. South 

Dartmouth 

Laurien Enos, Plymouth 

Leda Zimmerman, Lexington 

Leslye Heilig, MD. Great Barrington 

Linda Howe, Belmont 

Linda Waine, Taunton 

Lisa D'Ambrosio, Lancaster 

Llanda Richardson, PhD. Northborough 

Louis Jarvis, Arlington 

Madeline Loder, Longmeadow 

Mark Mahoney, MD. Mattapoisett 

Marshall Deutsch, PhD. Sudbury 

Mary Slayter, West Dennis 

Mary Flibbert, Worcester 

Mary jo Al-Tukhaim, West Townsend 

Mary Anna Foskett, Arlington 

Mindy Maxwell, Cambridge 

Mitchell T. Rabkin, Milton 

Mj Crook, Merrimac 

Nancy Woolley, JD. Stoughton 

Nancy Burkert, East Orleans 

Nicole Schildcrout, Amesbury 

Nilah M. MacDonald, RN. Scituate 

Paul Schendel, PhD. Wayland 

Peter Yeager, PhD. Framingham 

Regina LaRocque, MD. Wellesley 

Regis Burke, MSW. Norwood 

Richard Warren, Halifax 

Sally Thompson, MD. Acton 

Sally Shaw, Gill 

Sarah Joslin, MSW. North Falmouth 

Sarah Stewart, PhD. Watertown 

Sharon Macdonald, PhD. Sheffield 

Susan Blain, Gardner 

Suzanne Hodes, Waltham 

Turner Bledsoe, MD. Hingham 

Virginia Robinson, MSW. Newton Center 

Maryland 

Laszlo Trazkovich, MD. Reisterstown 

Aaeron Robb, Baltimore 

Alan Bromborsky, Silver Spring 

Barbara Blaylock, MD. Rockville 

Barbara Anderson, RN. Rockville 

Catherine Hart, Mount Airy 

Charles Alexander, Lutherville 

Corrine Mohnasky, Laurel 

Corrine Mohnasky, Laurel 
592 

Deborah Cunningham, Baltimore 

Denise Jakobsberg, Mount Rainier 

Diane Schwarz, Cheverly 

Diane Sartor, MPH. Laurel 

Donald Mcnellis, MD. Potomac 

Douglas Sedon, Jefferson 

Douglas McNeill, MSW. Greenbelt 

Dr. Carol Newill, MD. Baltimore 

Elaine M Yamada, PhD. Baltimore 

Elisabeth Null, Silver Spring 

Fran Levin, MD. Potomac 

Gregory Beyer, MD. Cumberland 

Hardip Bakshi, Rockville 

Harvey Fernbach, MD. Bethesda 

Howard McCoy, Centreville 

Irena Gorski, MPH. Baltimore 

James Bell, California 

James Moen, MD. Lavale 

Jeffrey Myers, PhD. Cheverly 

Jerome Cripe, MD. Columbia 

Jim Clemans, PhD. Bethesda 

Joyce Robinson, Glen Burnie 

Julia Morgan, Takoma Park 

Julie Solomon, PhD. Baltimore 

Karen Kuehl, MD. Silver Spring 

Katherine Gilbert, Chevy Chase 

Katherine White, MD. Derwood 

Kathleen Bentley, Baltimore 

Kathy Attar, MPH. Silver Spring 

Lisa Vaughan, Baltimore 

Lisa Jordan, PhD. Bethesda 

Lydia Sullivan, Rockville 

Marc And Alice - Imlay, PhD. Bryans Road 

Margaret Hadley, RN. Potomac 

Martha Scott, PhD. Annapolis 

MaryAnn Gregory, PhD. Westminster 

Merry Guben, JD. Worton 

Michael lchniowski, MD. Lutherville 

Mike Livermore, Silver Spring 

Molly Hauck, PhD. Rockville 

P Hickey, EMT. Millersville 

Pamela Harding, Baltimore 

Patricia McLaine, RN. Columbia 

Philip Allen, PhD. Annapolis 

Priya Little, MD. Baltimore 

Raymond Arent, Severna Park 

Richard Rydelek, JD. Bowie 

Robyn Gilden, PhD, RN. Finksburg 

Rocio Luparello, Frederick 

Ronald Lockwood, White Plains 

Roona Ray, MD. Rockville 

Ryan Bradley, Green bet! 

Sally Oesterling, Silver Spring 

Sara Sabbagh, DO. Chevy Chase 

Sara Via, PhD. Ellicott City 

Seth Bush, Baltimore 

Shelley Trazkovich, MD. Reisterstown 

Sheridan NEIMARK, JD. SILVER SPRING 

Stephen Brooks, PhD. Rockville 

Steven Shore, Columbia 

T Metz, Bethesda 

Tiffany Hu, College Park 

William Reichel, MD. Timonium 

William Horne, PhD. Salisbury 

~ 

Andrew Cadot, JD. Portland 

Janet Ordway, MD. Old Orchard Beach 

Beedy Parker, Camden 

Cb Davis, Gray 

Christine A De Troy, Brunswick 

Dawn DiBlasi, Fairfield 

Deborah Fobes, Berwick 

Doug Dransfield, MD. Cape Elizabeth 

Edward McAbee Jr, MD. York 

Eileen Frazier, JD. Portland 

Elizabeth Loewald, MD. Brunswick 

Ellen Rice, Brunswick 

James Klick, MD. South Freeport 

Janine Moore, Waterville 

Jeff Reynolds, Bangor 

jeffrey Saffer, MD. Cape Elizabeth 

jeffrey Zabik, Windsor 

Jennifer Muehle, Portland 

John Peck, PhD. Brunswick 

John Bernard, PhD. South Portland 

John E Meyn, Mr. Friendship 

Joseph Schenkel, PhD. Cape Elizabeth 

Judith Mitchell, Waldoboro 

Kathryn Bourgoin, MD. Orono 

Kenneth Brinnick, New Gloucester 

Leslie Poole, Rockland 
593 

Linda Peyton Hancock, Freeport 

Marilyn Hardy, Harpswell 

Meryl Pinque, Bangor 

Michael Sivulich, MD. New Gloucester 

Miriam Devlin, MD. Bangor 

Noah Rosenberg, MD. Portland 

Pat Berger, Oakland 

Paul Lie bow, MD. Bucksport 

Paul Mazur, MD. Northport 

Priscilla Skerry, NO. South Portland 

Robert Fritsch, Dexter 

Roger Zimmerman, PhD. Portland 04103 

Sheila Malone, Farmingdale 

Susan Weems, Brunswick 

Suzanne Foley-Ferguson, Scarborough 

Theodore Cherbuliez, MD. South Freeport 

Marshall Islands 

Carol Curtis, Majuro 

Michigan 

Anna Barron, Central Lake 

Art Hanson, Lansing 

Ellen Shoun, Bronson 

ABBY DEROCHE, Ewen 

Barbara Kantola, Niles 

Bill Polesnak, Troy 

Bonna Mettie, Paradise 

Buffy Silverman, Augusta 

Carla Corazzol, Ann Arbor 

Carol Doty, Belding 

Chuck Infantino, Sterling Heights 

Dale Anderson, Kalamazoo 

Dalinda Reese, MD. Blissfield 

Dana Kissner, MD. Ann Arbor 

Daniel Cavanaugh, ]D. Belleville 

Dave Gupta, MD. Okemos 

David Dyke, MD. Ann Arbor 

Denise Brennan, Auburn Hills 

Dennis Feichtinger, Trenton 

Dorothy Neff, Coleman 

Emily Haggerty, East Lansing 

Gavin Bornholtz, Grand Blanc 

Gerald Natzke, DO. Flint 

Holly Chisholm, Oxford 

Hope Dejonge, Conklin 

janet Anderson, Oak Park 

Jennifer Reinert, Marquette 

john Bhend, Harrisville 

john & Ileana Renfrew, PhD. Marquette 

Judith Bonini, IHM, ACSW. Monroe 

Kathleen Cramer, Grand Rapids 

Keith D'Alessandro, Canton 

Kim Johnson, LCSW. Brownstown 

Charter Township 

Kristin Green, Sault Sainte Marie 

Kristin Klass, Bridgman 

Larry Carney, Detroit 

Laura Kaufman, NP. Chelsea 

Linda Hegstrand, MD. Grand Rapids 

Lori Mulvey, Comstock Park 

Lome Beatty, Brighton 

Luanne Rowder, Holland 

Mark Messing, JD. Traverse City 

Mark Woodbury, St. johns 

Mary Ryan, PhD. Monroe 

Mary Ann Baier, Dearborn 

Maureen Sheahan, Southfield 

Michele Reynolds, Oak Park 

Monica Stuhlreyer, Monroe 

Natalie Hanson, Lansing 

NM Porter, Ypsilanti 

Pamela Esser, Bloomfield 

Pat Hartsoe, Grand Rapids 

Renee Nilan, MD. Ann Arbor 

Richard Han, Ann Arbor 

Richard Booth, Grosse lie 

Richard Booth, Grosse lie 

Ronald Kardos, Fenton 

Rosemary Ziemba, RN. Ann Arbor 

Ruth Briggs, Trenton 

Sandra Petersen, Grand Rapids 

Sarah Sercombe, Royal Oak 

Sidney Berkowitz, LCSW. West 

Bloomfield 

Steven Ashmead, MD. Grand Rapids 

Ted Reynolds, Ann Arbor 

Teresa Gingras, Lansing 

Terry Kinzel, MD. Hancock 

Therese Smith, RN. Ypsilanti 

Thomas Miskovsky, MD. Ann Arbor 

Tom Reichel, Rochester Hills 
594 

Minnesota 

Barb Powell, Rochester 

Brad Snyder, Maple Grove 

Bruce Snyder, MD. Saint Paul 

Bruce Kittilson, PhD. Golden Valley 

Candace Marx, Mazeppa 

Carol Frechette, Shakopee 

Cecilia Lieder, Duluth 

Charles (PhD In Physics) Eckroth, Saint 

Cloud 

Clayton Sankey, LCSW. Saint Paul 

Darcy Bergh, Saint Paul 

David Webb, MD. Lanesboro 

Delores Houle Msw, LCSW. Saint Paul 

Dorothy Anderson, MD. Madison 

Dr. Lynn P. Putnam, ND. Saint Paul 

Elaine Mayer, Rochester 

Elizabeth Merz, Fergus Falls 

Eva Pesch, MD. Minneapolis 

Gladys Schmitz, RN. Mankato 

Harriet McCleary, Minneapolis 

james Zents, MD. New Ulm 

james Flink, MD. Mahtomedi 

jamesm Nordlund, MSW. Moorhead 

Janet Neihart, Cottage Grove 

janice Hallman, Saint Paul 

jean Ross, Minneapolis 

jennifer Schmidt, Farwell 

Jesse Coenen, MD. Duluth 

jodie Myers, Woodbury 

John Viacrucis, Moorhead 

John Fitzgerald, Kilkenny 

John & Jean Fleming, Lakeville 

Judi Poulson, Fairmont 

judith Carlson, Maple Grove 

Judith Mackenzie, Minneapolis 

Kay Randall, Moorhead 

Kimberly Swenson-Zakula, PhD. Excelsior 

Lynn C. Lang, Saint Cloud 

Lynna Strom, Mpls 

Marie Malanaphy-Sorg, Saint Paul 

Marilyn Booton, Saint Paul 

Mercy Myers, Saint Paul 

Merle Teetzen, MD. Plymouth 

Michelle Gin, MPH. Eden Prairie 

Mimi Jennings, Saint Paul 

Nancy Sudak, MD. Duluth 

Nora Plesofsky, PhD. Minneapolis 

Owen Gustafson, Buffalo 

Pamela Jambeck, Pine City 

Paul Moss, White Bear Lake 

Paul & Christa Ernst, Saint Paul 

Peter Yackel, PhD. Plymouth 

Phillip Peterson, MD. Minneapolis 

Rachel lmholte, Minneapolis 

Rick Dahn, Silver Bay 

Rodney Hemmila, White Bear Lake 

Rose Knopff, Roseville 

Ruth Hruby, Montgomery 

Sally Christenson, Farwell 

Sean Hardin, Minneapolis 

Sharon Powell, JD. Grand Marais 

Sharon Fortunak, Saint Paul 

Susan Nordin, MD. Duluth 

Suzanne Bennett, Littlefork 

T Mo, LMT. Inver Grove Heights 

Thelma Hardman, Minneapolis 

Thomasin Ringler, Saint Paul 

Tina Fritts, RN. Owatonna 

Wanda Ballentine, MSW. Saint Paul 

William Nusbaum, Saint Louis Park 

William Olszewski, PhD. Saint Paul 

Missouri 

Abbe Sudvarg, MD. Saint Louis 

Carole Mehl, Kansas City 

Charles Kerr, Urbana 

Chas Martin, Saint Louis 

Cheryl Rosenfeld, DVM. Columbia 

Colleen And John Cuntz, Saint Louis 

Debra Harpole, Troy 

Donald Webb, Saint Peters 

Donna Dale, RN. StLouis 

Elizabeth Garrett, MD. Columbia 

Harold Watson, Springfield 

Ingrid Jones, Moberly 

Joan Brannigan, Saint Louis 

John Moszyk, Saint Louis 

Lesa Nelson, Springfield 

Linda Kurz, Lonedell 

Marci De Sart, MD. Saint Louis 
595 

Martha Jaegers, Saint Louis 

Michael Olen jack, Saint Louis 

Noel Blythe, Saint Charles 

Pam Steinmetz, Saint Louis 

Pamela Snyder, Pleasant Hill 

Patrick Dawson, Moscow Mills 

Rick Menendez, Barnhart 

Robert Haslag, Centertown 

Rosie Umstattd, Columbia 

Saphira Rain, Raytown 

Sister Clare Ann Litteken C.Pp.S., Saint 

Louis 

Stanley Veyhl, Richmond Heights 

Stephen Mudrick, Columbia 

Tracy Holthaus, Kansas City 

Vic Burton, Kansas City 

Mississippi 

Daniel Jones, Carthage 

Pam Coe, Water Valley 

Robert Heath, MD. Hattiesburg 

Montana 

jonathan Matthews, PhD. Helena 

Richard Hoskins, PhD. Missoula 

North Carolina 

Alan Helsing, Southern Pines 

Barbara Coulson, Marshall 

Barbara Lanwermeyer, ACSW. Brasstown 

Becca Greenstein, Chapel Hill 

Bobbi Lempert, N Topsail Beach 

Carol Soroos, Raleigh 

Chanda Farley, Canton 

Chas Griffin, Seven Lakes 

Christi Dillon, Mooresville 

Darrell & Carol Vale, Charlotte 

David Smith, Greenville 

Debby Baker, Charlotte 

Deja Lizer, Asheville 

Don Richardson, MD. Brevard 

Don Richardson, MD. Brevard 

Donald Harland, RN. Candler 

Dorothy Lee, Leicester 

Dot Sulock, Asheville 

Doug Franklin, Hayesville 

Elisabeth Jezierski, Durham 

Elizabeth O'Nan, Marion 

G.W. Cheney, Boone 

Gary Simpson, Pittsboro 

George Neste, High Point 

Gregory Austin, Charlotte 

Heide Catherina Coppotelli, PhD. Cedar 

Mountain 

James Thomas, Chapel Hill 

Janet Tice, RN. Chapel Hill 

JC Honeycutt, Hertford 

Jeffrey Collins, PhD. Chapel Hill 

Jim Thomas, Chapel Hill 

John Bradshaw, Charlotte 

Joyce Pusel, RN. Durham 

Kate C Boniske, Asheville 

Katie Morrissey, Charlotte 

Kent Swenson, Franklin 

Laura Barr, Gastonia 

Linda Seligman, Hillsborough 

Lisa Neste, High Point 

Louis Lanwermeyer, Brasstown 

Louisa Dyer, MA. Weaverville 

Margie Zalesak, Raleigh 

Marian Swinker, MD. Winterville 

Mary E. Sayler, Charlotte 

Matthew Arnsberger, Carrboro 

Michael Morgan, EMT. Swannanoa 

Michael Eisenberg, Raleigh 

Micki Patton, Boonville 

Mike Giles, Wrightsville Beach 

Pat Gallimore, Leicester 

Paul Gallimore, Leicester 

Peter Reynolds, PhD. Durham 

Randy Marrs, Asheville 

Richard McCrary, Gastonia 

Richard Curry, Pinebluff 

Samuel Speciale, PhD. Asheville 

Sharon Kaye, Asheville 

Shirley Rodman, Greensboro 

Thayer Jordan, Chapel Hill 

Veronica Jantzen, Aydlett 

Victoria Kaprielian, MD. Durham 

Walter Weathers, MPH. Durham 

William St. George, Wilmington 

Zell McGee, MD. Chapel Hill 
596 

North Dakota 

Dorothy Rei!, EMT. Alexander 

Nebraska 

Andrea Howard, Omaha 

David Burnham, Omaha 

Don Zebolsky, PhD. Omaha 

Heidi Ludwick, Papillion 

judith Sandeen, RN. Hastings 

Linda Gertig, Bellevue 

Lindie Brown, Hastings 

Lynn Robinson, Bellevue 

Michal Simpson, Omaha 

Natalie Van Leekwijck, Hazard 

Sandi Aden, Lincoln 

Tami Fleming, Omaha 

New Hampshire 

Alyssa Owens, Keene 

Bev Edwards, Temple 

Brian O'Brien, Hampton 

C Cohen, Dover 

Charles Arnold, Manchester 

Dan Hubbard, PhD. Rochester 

Diane Pease, Littleton 

Elaina Valzania, Greenland 

Eleuthera Paulina Du Pont-Passigli, 

Alstead 

Erline Towner, LPC. Milford 

Francis Gregoire, Hooksett 

Gail Wingate, FNP. Portsmouth 

Glen Benjamin, Portsmouth 

Grace Payne, Tamworth 

janice Banks, Center Barnstead 

jesse De La Rosa, DC. Hinsdale 

jon Batson, Rochester 

Mara Sabinson, Cornish 

Marilyn Britton, Peterborough 

Mary M. Casey, Manchester 

Maura Riley, Nashua 

Nicole Sczekan, NP. Dover 

Ruth Brighton, Brentwood 

Sandra Graves,Andover 

Sarah Doenmez, Dublin 

Sylvia Dwyer, Weare 

William Toms, MD. Keene 

Yvonne Schulman, DVM. Bow 

New Jersey 

A Kasbarian, Kenilworth 

Ana Quispe, RD. Kearny 

Barbara Croken, Red Bank 

Bianca Constance, Englewood 

Brian Reynolds, Atlantic City 

Carol Cook, Franklin Park 

Carol Jagiello, Bloomingdale 

Charlie Mccullagh, Red Bank 

Claxton Crowder, MD. Mount Laurel 

Connie Podorf, Sussex 

Cori Bishop, Egg Harbor City 

Curt Baker, )D. Ocean City 

Daniel Kahn, MD. Mountain Lakes 

Denise Lytle, Fords 

Denise Laffer, North Plainfield 

Dennis Millevoi, Atlantic Highlands 

Donald Murphy, Elizabeth 

Donna Weiss, OTR. Monroeville 

Elena Marie Fetch, Branchburg 

Elizabeth Banwell, Howell 

Enid Rosenblatt, Moorestown 

George Laroza, Brookside 

Harold & Carole johnson, Bridgewater 

Harriet jernquist, Millburn 

Hattie Heavner, Englewood 

Ian OKeefe, Madison 

Ida Carideo, Wayside 

jack Schwartz, Hazlet 

jane Davidson, Englewood 

jay Hawkshead, DrPH. Waldwick 

jean Cooper, RN. Pennington 

jeanne Bradbury, Flemington 

jeffrey Rattner, Lake Hopatcong 

jerome Sheitelman, Basking Ridge 

john McDonald, Newark 

jonathan Allen, PhD. Titusville 

Kathy Hart, North Caldwell 

Kelly Choi, MD. Madison 

Kevin O'Keefe, Brielle 

Linda McKillip, Erial 

Louise Sellon, New Providence 

Lucy Sorlucco, North Bergen 
597 

M. Cecilia Correia, Elizabeth 

Maki Murakami, Monroe 

Margaret C. McHugh, Sparta 

Mark Waltzer, DMD. Cherry Hill 

Mark Fulton, Stone Harbor 

Mary Kushner, Roseland 

Marylee Smyth, Mount Holly 

Matthew Franck, Highland Park 

Michael Carney, Runnemede 

Michael Masley, Hopewell 

Michelle Webb, Pitman 

Mike Albar, Hillsborough 

Millicent Sims, Montclair 

Myrna Fichtenbaum, Lawrenceville 

Nancy Taiani, Glen Ridge 

Nika Kollar, Nutley 

Nina Lazar, Cedar Grove 

Norman & Linda Pugliese, Forked River 

0. Ruiz, Clifton 

OJ Sikes, MPH. Leonia 

P Scoville, Hewitt 

Patrick Jordan, Jersey City 

Peter Geidel, PhD. Paterson 

Philip J. Hyun, Edison 

Rev. Elizabeth Congdon, RN. Red Bank 

Richard Berggren, Maplewood 

Richard Riggs, Branchburg 

Robert Freidin, PhD. Princeton 

Robert Keller, Parsippany 

Rose Reina-Rosenbaum, MPH. 

Hillsborough 

Ruth Kram, West Orange 

S. Lopes, MPH. Harrison 

Sandra Polk, Flemington 

Sara Lazarus, Millburn 

Scott Mooney, Newton 

Stephanie Schultz, Upper Saddle River 

Sue Morrison, MD. Caldwell 

Susan Hurwitz, VMD. River Edge 

Susan E. Snyder, MD, PhD, PhD. 

Maplewood 

Sus en Shapiro, Egg Harbor City 

Terry Lunn, Egg Harbor Township 

Timothy Beitel, Pitman 

Tom Harris, MD. Bordentown 

New Mexico 

Amy Levi, PhD. Albuquerque 

Amy Dingman, Albuquerque 

Andre Holmes, Santa Fe 

Anita Holtz, MD. Albuquerque 

B. Thomas Diener, Albuquerque 

Bettemae Johnson, Albuquerque 

Bruce Donnell, Santa Fe 

Carol Kain, RN. Albuquerque 

Chilton Gregory, Albuquerque 

David Aldridge, PhD. Albuquerque 

Debra Oliver, Santa Fe 

Dianne Barnes, LPC. Albuquerque 

Dorothy Kethler, PhD. Ranchos De Taos 

Dottie Butler, Valdez 

Dr. Thomas M. Davies, Jr., PhD. 

Albuquerque 

Elaine Gross, Albuquerque 

Elisabeth Price, Albuquerque 

Emelie Olson, PhD. Taos 

Emily Rothman, DO. Albuquerque 

Erika Wanenmacher, Santa Fe 

Gary Cronin, Santa Fe 

Gordon Parker Ill, Albuquerque 

Hans Von Briesen, PhD. Santa Fe 

Jan McCreary, Silver City 

Jana Gunnell, MD. Taos 

Jeanne Corns, FNP. Albuquerque 

Jeannette Alt, Albuquerque 

John And Carolyn Wilson, Magdalena 

Joyce Carlson-leavitt, PhD. Los Ranchos 

Joyce Cousino, Deming 

Karen Weber, Santa Fe 

Kenneth Kast, MSW. Santa Fe 

Lee Johnson, Las Vegas 

Lorene Mills, Santa Fe 

Maria Gabrielle, NO. Santa Fe 

Marilyn Hoff, El Prado 

Nancy Drake, MPH. Santa Fe 

Nancy King, Santa Fe 

Peter Roche, Santa Fe 

Robert Rosas, Albuquerque 

Sarah Brownrigg, LPN. Santa Fe 

Sarah W Barlow, JD. Albuquerque 

Spencer Stall, El Prado 

Stephen Joseph, MD. Santa Fe 
598 

Susan Diaz, MD. Albuquerque 

Terry Warkentine, Albuquerque 

Thea Beckett, Santa Fe 

Thomas Talbot, Anthony 

William Swinney, Santa Fe 

William Buss, PhD. Corrales 

Nevada 

Carol King, North Las Vegas 

Carol Perry, Sparks 

Debbie Thomas, Fernley 

Delaine Spilsbury, Me Gill 

Derek Gendvil, Las Vegas 

Faith Franck, Las Vegas 

Faraz Alizadeh, MD. Las Vegas 

Georgina Wright, North Las Vegas 

Henry Kimbell, Sparks 

Howard Karsh, Las Vegas 

Jngeborg Glier, North Las Vegas 

Janet Walls, Minden 

Jennifer Pritchard, Henderson 

John & Shirley Valney, Reno 

Laura Lessly, Sparks 

Lee Oakes, Las Vegas 

Linda Blakely, Las Vegas 

Marc Reynolds, MD. Fallon 

Margaret Jerinic, Henderson 

Patricia Baley, Las Vegas 

Rosemary Shuflat, Las Vegas 

Susan Noble, Sparks 

Tina Snyder, Tonopah 

New York 

Frank Baldwin, MD. Ithaca 

Jeanne Elisha, RN. Schenectady 

judi Fusco, LCSW. New York 

Lucinda Grovenburg, MD. Kerhonkson 

Gerson Lesser, MD. Bronx 

Jayne Swarz, Port Washington 

Nora Gaines, New York 

Ammiel Schwartz, MD. Pawling 

Alice Shields, PhD. New York 

Alice Bartholomew, RN. Elmira 

Alice Brody, New York 

Aline Shipreck, Ballston Lake 

Alix Keast, LMT. New York 

Amy Harlib, New York 

Andrea Zinn, Brooklyn 

Anita Brandariz, Brooklyn 

Ann Brochhagen, Lindenhurst 

Ann S Johnson, NP. Kerhonkson 

Anne-Marie Uebbing, NP. Rhinebeck 

Anthony Magnavita, Staten Island 

Anthony Suchman, MD. Rochester 

Arlene Zuckerman, Forest Hills 

Arlene Forwand, PT. Huntington 

Aron Shevis, Brooklyn 

Arthur Zelman, MD. Rye 

Barbara Warren, RN. Cuddebackville 

Barbara Edelstein, New York 

Betty Trentlyon, New York 

Beverly Simone, West Nyack 

Bill Kuebel, Rochester 

Bonnie Koshofer, OTR. Schenectady 

Brian Leggiere, PhD. New York 

Caridad Romaine, Bay Shore 

Carmen Bosque, Bronx 

Carol Elias, Massena 

Carol Jackson, New York 

Caroline Redington, Ashville 

Caroline Lane, Flushing 

Carolyn Clark Pierson, Treadwell 

Cave Man, MSW. New York 

Cavin Leeman, MD. New York 

Cecile Lawrence, JD. Vestal 

Charles Ruas, PhD. New York 

Charles Casper, Union Springs 

Chris McGinn, New York 

Chris Washington, New York 

Chris Saia, Brooklyn 

Christine Marquette, Monticello 

Christopher Panayi, PhD. New York 

Christopher Giordano, Rush 

Clare Chollet, Elmira 

Clifford Provost, New York 

Cole en Gowans, Astoria 

Cynthia Liss, Brooklyn 

D Fassman, DPM. Westbury 

Dana Saltzman, MD. New York 

Daniel Willner, Katonah 

Daniel Olson, Astoria 

Daniel Klein, Brooklyn 
599 

David jutt, Scarsdale 

David Klass, New York 

David Randall, Port jefferson 

Dawn ODonnell, Greenfield Center 

Dawn Mello, PT. Clarksville 

Debbie Peters, JD. Bronx 

Deborah Hoffmann, Buffalo 

Deborah Beck, Peekskill 

Debra Teplin, PA. New York 

Diane Hafner, Mayville 

Dolores Osborne, Brooklyn 

Donna Greenwell, Saratoga Springs 

Donna Mummery, Honeoye Falls 

DoRi Miles, Crown Point 

Doris Kelly, Hyde Park 

Douglas Kinney, Maj. U.S. Army, DMD. 

Otego 

Douglass Turner, Alfred 

Duncan Fowler, Lynbrook 

Elaine Donovan, LPN. Hemlock 

Elaine Mansfield, Burdett 

Elaine Siebenaler, Nanuet 

Eli Hegeman, PhD. Ny 

Elin Defrin, Amenia 

Elizabeth Watts, DO. Lynbrook 

Elizabeth Rosenthal, MD. Larchmont 

Elizabeth Guthrie, Webster 

Ellen Grove, Brooklyn 

Ellen Kirshbaum, MPH. Brooklyn 

Emilie Tropiano, Dix Hills 

Eric Serxner, Brooklyn 

Erica Patrick, MD. Fairport 

Erland Zygmuntowicz, New York 

Erma Lewis, Brooklyn 

Flora Mattis, New York 

Francisco J. Velez, Bronx 

Fred Binkley, New York 

Fred Thomas, Far Rockaway 

Freya Goldstein, New York 

Gabrielle Kayser, Hicksville 

Gail Schon beck, Hoosick Falls 

Gene Binder,Bronx 

Gerald Hassett, Sunnyside 

Glenda Lilling, Port Chester 

Gloria Messer, Ny 

Guy Quinlan, ]D. New York 

H Ellis Griffin, Poughquag 

Helen Cu, Brooklyn 

Ian Darnton-Hill, MD. New York 

lise Mutch nick, Lindenhurst 

Ira Weissman, MD. Potsdam 

Isabel Charbonneau, Astoria 

I Diamond, LMT. New York 

j. Lombardi, New York 

jack David Marcus, MPH. New York 

james Bochenek, Delmar 

james Pfitzner, Lagrangeville 

jane Halsey, Brooklyn 

Jane Marquet, New York 

janet Zimmerman, Pine Island 

janet Veale, Kiamesha Lake 

janet S Matthews, Rockville Centre 

jason Trentlyon, New York 

Javier Rivera, Brooklyn 

Jean Naples, MD. West Haverstraw 

jean Standish, New York 

jeanette Capotorto, Commack 

jennifer josephy, New York 

jenny Heinz, LCSW. New York 

jeremiah Gelles, MD. Brooklyn 

jesse Gennarelli, Warwick 

jessica Bader, New York 

jill Berkowitz-Berliner, DPM. Mount 

Kisco 

Jill Nicholas, Penfield 

joan Lesikin, Pine Bush 

joan Farber, PhD. New York 

Joan Abruzzo, Bayside 

joan Parks, Kenmore 

joe Sanders, Rochester 

joel Mandelbaum, MD. Kingston 

John Merriman, Cortland 

john Markowitz, MD. New York 

john Braico, MD, MD. Queensbury 

john Skelly, PT. Valley Cottage 

John Papandrea, New York 

John Doyle, New York 

John Bucki john Bucki, Syracuse 

jon Singleton, New York 

jon Fields, Port Washington 

jonathan Peter, Binghamton 

joyce McDonald, Webster 
600 

judith Garson, New York 

judy Wenning, New York 

julia Harrison, Flushing 

Kate Skolnick, Brooklyn 

Kathleen Braico, MD. Queensbury 

Kathleen Keske, Brooklyn 

L Knutson, Brooklyn 

L Glasner, New York 

Laura Dame, Saranac Lake 

Laura Raforth, Rochester 

Laura Nowack, Earlville 

Laura Napoleon, Little Neck 

Lauren Zajac, MD. New York 

Lawrence D'Arco, Albany 

Lee McClure, New York 

Lenore Greenberg, Brooklyn 

Leonore Meyer, Sleepy Hollow 

Leslie Kaplan, New York 

Leslie Cassidy, New York 

Linda Pachter, Hewlett 

Linda Rudman, New York 

Linda Allen, Snyder 

Linda Beach, Albany 

Lion Lion Hesse jr., PhD. Massapequa 

Ljubica Sefer-Stefancic, New York 

Lois Quirk, MSW. Ithaca, 

Lois Leonard, Aquebogue 

Lottie Tartell, West Hempstead 

Lourdes Sabia, Philipstown 

Lucy Waletzky, MD. Pleasantville 

Lucy Sardell, New York 

Luiz Perez, East Hampton 

Lydia Saderman, Forest Hills 

Lyn Capurro, RN. Great Neck 

M. Scile, Medical Student. Massapequa 

M. Doretta Cornell, PhD. Hawthorne 

Madeline Shaw, Slate Hill 

Mady Marantz, PhD. New York 

Marc Campbell, DO. Binghamton 

Marcy Arlin, Brooklyn 

Margaret Rafferty, RN. New York 

Marge Dakouzlian, Staten Island 

Maria Bosch, Ghent 

Maria Millar, New York 

Maria Studer, Levittown 

Marilyn Kaggen, Brooklyn 

Mark Donato, West Shokan 

Marlena Lange, Middletown 

Mary Faraday, MSW. Rockville Centre 

Mary Bautista, New York 

Mary Smith, Rochester 

Mary Lynn Hanley, New York 

MaryAnn Burch, Aurora 

MaryGrace Brown, Mount Sinai 

Matthew Dean, Pelham Manor 

Maureen Merritt, DO. Fairport 

Maxine Klein, New York 

Maxine Klein, NYC 

Melanie Mahoney Stopyra, Syracuse 

Melissa Chitwood, Nyack 

Melissa Bishop, Deposit 

Mercedes Armillas, Brooklyn 

Michael Gresko, DrPH. Highland Mills 

Michael Bennett, PhD. New Rochelle 

Michael Olson, Brooklyn 

Michael Gelfer, Putnam Valley 

Michael Gerber, Snyder 

Michele Manisoff, OTR. Long Island City 

Michele Westervelt, Brooklyn 

Mikki Chalker, Binghamton 

Mildred Antonelli, PhD. New York 

Morri Markowitz, MD. Bronx 

Myrna Sak, Saratoga Springs 

N. Dumser, Northport 

Nancy Wiesenfeld, Brooklyn 

Nancy Sharpe, Liverpool 

Ned Overton, Lake Grove 

Neil Freson, Henrietta 

Nicholas Prychodko, Bridgehampton 

Nina Kane, New York 

Nina Klippel, New York 

Norma MT &Carl W Braun, MD. 

Thornwood 

Norman Aamodt, PhD. Lake Placid 

Norman West, Lake Ronkonkoma 

Odile Stern, New York 

Oliver Yourke, Brooklyn 

Oliver Yourke, Brooklyn 

Pamylle Greinke, Peconic 

Patricia Beetle, Castleton 

Peter Santogade, MD. New York 

Peter Kivic, PhD. Fort Covington 
601 

Peter). Keiser, Manlius 

Priscilla Fairbank, Averill Park 

Reisa Gould-Donath, NP. Saratoga 

Springs 

Rhoda Levine, MPH. New York 

Rhonda Lieberman, Astoria 

Richard Stern, )D. New York 

Richard Weiskopf, MD. Syracuse 

Richard Beal, NO. Skaneateles 

Rita Zielinski, Pine Plains 

Rob Fursich, Hartsdale 

Robert Rivera, New York 

Robert Hotaling, Albany 

Robert Tefft, Brooklyn 

Robert jacobson, Brooklyn 

Robert Phillips, Patchogue 

Roberta Desalle, MSW. New York 

Robin Mater, New York 

Roy Stock,Albany 

Ruth Sherman, MSW. Sleepy Hollow 

Sandy Wraight, Ithaca 

Sara Seiden, Forest Hills 

Sarah Hamilton, PhD. Canastota 

Shannon Gearhart, MD. Brooklyn 

Sharon Rosseland, Port jefferson 

Sharon Nolting. LCSW. New York 

Sharon Wilson, New York 

Sheila Palevsky, MD. New York 

Shilpa Darivemula, Albany 

Sonia Goldstein, New York 

Steffie Woolhandler, MD. New York 

Stephanie Feyne, New York 

Stephanie Kob, New York 

Stephen Appell, Brooklyn 

Steve Neubeck, Buffalo 

Susan Cox, New York 

Susan Torres, Carmel 

Susan Hittel, New York 

Susan jenkins, Huntington 

Susan Carey, Whitestone 

Susanne Rash, Williamsville 

Terri Kauber, Cheektowaga 

Thea Hetzner, Woodside 

Thomas Reynolds, Voorheesville 

Thomas Fasy, MD. New York 

Thomas Artin, PhD. Sparkill 

Thomas Schumacher, Rochester 

Toni Otello, NP. New York 

Tracy Griswold, Bronxville 

Trish Gardiner, Weedsport 

V.L. Brandt, New York 

Vicki Fox, Beacon 

Wendy Fast, Dansville 

Wendy Yost, LCSW. Syracuse 

William Sharfman, PhD. New York 

WILLIAM LEVINSON, Kingston 

Xavier Pi-Sunyer, New York 

Zorika Henderson, Ithaca 

.!l.!li.Q. 

Thomas Holubeck, MD. Cincinnati 

Alan Lockwood, MD. Oberlin 

julia Radwany, MD. Akron 

Alice Dugar, Independence 

Amy Schumacher, Beavercreek 

Anita Bixenstine, PhD. Kent 

Ann C. McGill, Brunswick 

Anthony Almazan, MD. Oakwood 

Anthony Mehle, MD. Canfield 

Barbara Kelly, Youngstown 

Barbara Sue Scholl, Lancaster 

Catherine Brennan, Cortland 

Chantal Dothey, MD. Cleveland 

Charles Mullen, Canton 

Chris Byknish, RN. Masury 

Christine james, MD. Cincinnati 

Connie Stephens, RN. Westerville 

David Christman, Oxford 

David Greene, Columbus 

Dawn Kosec, Austintown 

Deborah Lyons, Oxford 

Don Chasteen, Millbury 

Donald Moeser, ACSW. Portsmouth 

Donald Hyatt, Columbus 

Elaine Thallner, MD. Shaker Heights 

Ellen Dryer, DVM. Loveland 

Fatima Al-Hayani, PhD. Toledo 

Geraldin Fogarty, Yellow Springs 

Gillian Solem, RN. Hudson 

Heather Cantino, ME d. Athens 

Janel! Lundgren, MD. Cincinnati 

Jason Chao, MD. Cleveland 
602 

Joan Lang, Cleveland 

Johanna Meara, LMT. Columbus 

John Klick, MD. Chagrin Falls 

John Brewer, PT. Marietta 

Joyce Kahle, RN. Dayton 

Kathleen Kinsey, Cincinnati 

Katie And Bill Dresbach, Sheffield Lake 

Kenneth Adler, MD. Sylvania 

Kenneth Carolus, Cincinnati 

Kristin Huntoon, DO. Columbus 

Laura Wexler MD, MD. Cincinnati 

Lee Martin, Greenwich 

Leone Batte, Grove City 

Les Paul, Marietta 

Loretta Kerns, Cortland 

Louise McCoy, ACSW. Cincinnati 

Lowell Palm, Washington Court House 

Marion Kim, East Canton 

Mary Zack, Worthington 

Mary Lois Hilton, Lebanon 

Meredith Needham, Granville 

Michael Norden, Defiance 

Michael Bethards, Newark 

Mike Bushaw, Huber Heights 

Myron Mohr, PhD. Van Wert 

Nathan Hetrick, Lakewood 

Patricia Mackura, South Euclid 

Reed Oliver, Cincinnati 

Richard Plumb, DO. Troy 

Richard Boyce, PhD. Cincinnati 

Robert Donovan, MD. Cincinnati 

Robin Thompson, Hemlock 

Rochelle Lazio, Lakewood 

Ronald B. Borgquist, Lewis Center 

Sharon Beamer, New Philadelphia 

Steven Federman, Ottawa Hills 

Susan Bailey-Pruc, Akron 

Tom Kozel, Clarksville 

Tom/Betty Cliff, Massillon 

Valerie Sherrill, Boardman 

Victoria Loschiavo, Madison 

Wendy Chrisman, Columbus 

William Katzin, MD. Cleveland Heights 

William Stern, Euclid 

Oklahoma 

David Owen, Dr PH. Broken Arrow 

DEBORAH SMITH, Oklahoma City 

Guillermo Arnaud, MD. Norman 

Lana Henson, Oklahoma City 

Lisa Lewis, Stillwater 

Lydia Garvey, RN. Clinton 

~ 

John Gillette, MD. Portland 

Glenn Gordon, MD. Eugene 

Marie Valleroy, MD. Portland 

Gary McCuen, Salem 

A. Todd, Eugene 

Alan Lawrence, Portland 

Alexandra Garcia, Portland 

Andy Harris, MD. Portland 

Anita Runyan, PhD. Eugene 

Ann Clarkson, PhD. Portland 

Anna Marti, Portland 

Annabelle Herbert, Portland 

Anne Goldfeld, MPH. Hillsboro 

Barbara Manildi, MD. Lake Oswego 

Barbara Led!, RN. Reedsport 

Becky BeiJ-Greenstreet, North Bend 

Ben Earle, Portland 

Bobbee Murr, Portland 

Bruce Bauer, Medford 

Carol Bosworth, Portland 

Carol Nieh, MPH. Lake Oswego 

Carrie Phyliky Rimes, Ashland 

Celeste Howard, PhD. Hillsboro 

Charlie Graham, Hillsboro 

Charlotte Sahnow, PhD. Eugene 

Chasity Hungerford, LMT. Albany 

Cheryl Erb, Salem 

Cynthia Jones, Salem 

Dana Bleckinger, Yachats 

Danny Dyche, Hillsboro 

Dave Ruud, MD. Portland 

David Maceira, Salem 

David Hermanns, Portland 

DavidS. Nichols, PhD. Portland 

Dean Pryer, Eugene 

Debbie Schlenoff, Eugene 

Debora Tramposh, Portland 
603 

Debra Poscharscky, Portland 

Dennis Sweeney, MD. Portland 

Dennis Hoerner, Eugene 

Diane Winn, MPH. Portland 

Dolly Warden, Talent 

Don Orwick, MD. Salem 

Don E. Dumond, PhD. Eugene 

Donna Thelander, Portland 

Donna Murphy, Portland 

Dora Haslett, Portland 

Dorinda Kelley, Portland 

Ed Davie, Forest Grove 

Elizabeth Waldron, MD. Corvallis 

Ellen Maddex, Eugene 

Eric Klinger, PhD. Portland 

Evelyn Pietrowski-Ciullo, Salem 

Faye Bennett, Portland 

Frodo Okulam, Portland 

Gail Ohara, Portland 

Gary Pederson, DDS. Salem 

George Weissmann, PhD. Portland 

Glen Paris-Stamm, Ashland 

Glenda Goldwater, Portland 

Gwen Hadland, Hillsboro 

Harriet Edith Roberts, Eugene 

Harry Wohlsein, Milwaukie 

Helen Anderson, Gladstone 

Helen Logan Hays, Oregon City 

Irene Saikevych, MD. Central Point 

james Bernard, Portland 

james Davis, Bend 

jen Ei, Beaverton 

jill Chadbourne, Eugene 

jim Freeberg, Ashland 

joanna Hatfield, MD. Portland 

joel Kay, MD. Milwaukie 

john Brinkley, PhD. Eugene 

joy Mamoyac, Corvallis 

joyce Follingstad, PhD. Portland 

judith Lienhard, RN. Portland 

judy Lubera, RN. Portland 

julia Hanfling, RD. Portland 

julie Kangas-Walker, Tigard 

Karen Deora, Portland 

Karin Olson, Beaverton 

Kathleen Laughlin, MD. Tualatin 

Kathy Birch, RN. Portland 

Kelly McConnell, Tigard 

Kelly Campbell, Portland 

Ken Sexton, Salem 

Larry Bulling, Corvallis 

Lars jefferson, Albany 

Lauren Thompson, Oregon City 

Laurie Fisher, Tigard 

Lester And judy Hoyle, Cave junction 

Linda Meier, MD. Portland 

Linda Smith, Rogue River 

Linda Schmidt, Eugene 

Linda Seidel, Salem 

Linda Waer, Portland 

Lindsay Hope Kern, Portland 

Lorraine Foster, Portland 

Marceline Gearry, Portland 

Margaret Cary, MD. Portland 

Marilyn Cohen, JD. Portland 

Marjorie Kircher, OTR. Portland 

Mary Lasswell, Portland 

Mary & john Sievertsen, Portland 

Mary Ellen Coulter, MD. Bend 

Maureen O'Neal, Portland 

Maye Thompson, PhD. Portland 

Melissa Barney, MD. Portland 

Michael Wolf, LMT. Portland 

Michael Sluss, MD. Wilsonville 

Michael Allen, Florence 

Mike LaPorte, RN. Portland 

Mike Wolf, Corvallis 

Nancy Crumpacker, MD. Portland 

Nancy McDonald, West Linn 

Nancy Morris-judd, Portland 

P. Brooks McGinnis, Portland 

Patricia Murphy, NO. Portland 

Patty Bonney, Portland 

Paul Meyer-Strom, MD. Portland 

Paul - Please Engstrom, ACSW. Portland 

Pauline Duffy, Portland 

Phil Hanson, Milwaukie 

Phoebe Quillian, Talent 

Rand Dawson, jD. Westlake 

Rebecca Kimsey, Sublimity 

Regna Merritt, PA. Portland 

Richard Hughes, Kerby 
604 

Richard Beam, MD. West Linn 

Richard Barker, Beaverton 

Robert Moore, MD. Portland 

Robert Stebbins, PhD. Corvallis 

Robert G. Hatton, Portland 

Roberta Hall, PhD. Corvallis 

Roger Burt, Portland 

Roger Widenoja, Silver Lake 

S Jenika, MSW. Portland 

Sandra Joos, PhD. Portland 

Sara Pascoe, PhD. Portland 

Sarah Wiebenson, Portland 

Shaindel Beers, Pendleton 

Shannon Nelson-Deighan, Portland 

Sheri Ambrose, Lincoln City 

Sherry Archer, RN. Portland 

Sherry Burge, Salem 

Steve Goldstein, MSW. Oregon City 

Steve Weiss, Portland 

Susan Boyce, Myrtle Creek 

Susan Rustvold, DMD. Portland 

Susan Bagby, MD. Portland 

Susan Wechsler, Corvallis 

Trygve Steen, PhD. Portland 

Valerie White, Corvallis 

Virginia Rosenkranz, Portland 

Vivianne Mosca-Clark, Williams 

William Lenardson, Klamath Falls 

William Rizer, Carlton 

William Howald, Salem 

Pennsylvania 

Saul Wider, MD. Springfield 

Abigail Newburger, Newburg 

Adam Goren, Erdenheim 

Aggie Perilli, Lancaster 

Alan Peterson, MD. Willow Street 

Allen Wolk, New Kensington 

Andrea Fleming, Richboro 

Andrew Johnson, DVM. Gibsonia 

Ann Kuter, RN. Warrington 

Anna Kalafut, RN. Butler 

Annette Calderone, PhD, RN. Dallas 

Arno Vosk, MD. Williamsport 

Barbara Brandom, MD. Pittsburgh 

Bernard Saftner, Pittsburgh 

Carole Reed, Pittsburgh 

Catherine Levine, Philadelphia 

Charles Lane, Lancaster 

Christina Marcus, North Wales 

Craig Conn, MD. Pittsburgh 

David Greene, North Huntingdon 

David Christiansen, MD. Mechanicsville 

David Kagan, Jersey Shore 

David Wiley, Philadelphia 

David Eaby, EPHRATA 

Dawn Mason, Pottsville 

Deanne O'Donnell, Derry 

Deborah Hepler, Pittsburgh 

Donald Waltman, State College 

Donna McKee, Lederach 

Douglas Norton, PhD. Havertown 

Elizabeth Thompson, PA. Carlisle 

Elizabeth Keech, PhD. Wynnewood 

Elizabeth Landis, Lancaster 

Ellen Asbell, Boyertown 

Ellen Poist, Philadelphia 

Garry Taroli, JD. Wilkes Barre 

Geoffrey Ruben, MD. Washington 

George Stradtman, Elkins Park 

Gerritt And Elizabeth Baker-Smith, East 

Stroudsburg 

Gilda De Ferrari, Aliquippa 

Gloriana Sewell, Milford Square 

Harold Denenberg, OTR. Langhorne 

Harry Hochheiser, PhD. Pittsburgh 

Helene Rosen, Ivyland 

Henry Berkowitz, Sabinsville 

J. Gallagher, Wayne 

Jack Barrett, Bushkill 

Jacqueline Richey, Pittsburgh 

James Stasheff, Lansdale 

Jay McCahill, Lansdowne 

Jean Barker, Kennett Square 

Jeanne Held-Warmkessel, RN. North 

Wales 

Jeff Alper, Elkins Park 

Jennifer Lowans, Fayetteville 

Jill Fackenthal, Pottsville 

Jill Turco, Philadelphia 

Jim Sandoe, Ephrata 

Joan Mitsuka, West Chester 
605 

john Deegan, PhD. Villanova 

john Comella, PhD. Philadelphia 

john Kotarski, Perkasie 

john Scahill, Pittsburgh 

john jr Lucci, Beaver 

john & Rose Marie Schieber, 

Southampton 

joshua Pechulis, Kingston 

joyce Me Clintock, Lancaster 

judith Springer, Exton 

juliann Pinto, Philadelphia 

K Danowski, Pittsburgh 

Kathleen Rueppel, Me Kees Rocks 

Kathleen Reifke, Pottstown 

Kathy Kroll, Stroudsburg 

Kevin Browngoehl, MD. Bryn Mawr 

Kimberly Seger, Kittanning 

Kirk Ramble, York 

Laurie Williams, East Pittsburgh 

Lawrence Tonzi, FNP. Cornwall 

Lee Blum, PhD. Dresher 

Linette Schreiber, Ardmore 

Marian McAllister, Philadelphia 

Mario Dominick, Latrobe 

Mark Russo, MD. Bryn Mawr 

Mark Dodel, RN. Stroudsburg 

Marti Haykin, MD. Greensburg 

Mary Himmer, MSW. Blue Bell 

Mary jean Sharp, Altoona 

Michael Follman, Bethlehem 

Michael Zuckerman, PhD. Philadelphia 

Patricia Parker, Lewisburg 

Paul Read, MD. Philadelphia 

Paul Parker, PA. Avella 

Poune Saberi, MD. Philadelphia 

Renee Austin, Birchrunville 

Rev. Raymond Brown, Selinsgrove 

Richard Timm, Lansdowne 

Richard Alloway, Philadelphia 

Richard A. Surdyk, Pittsburgh 

Robert jehn, Cochranton 

Robert Doll, MD. Allentown 

Robert Little, MD. Harrisburg 

Robert janusko, PhD. Bethlehem 

Robert Gibb, PhD. Homestead 

Robert Crossetti, Collingdale 

Robert And Helen Butte), PhD. 

Philadelphia 

Rosemarie Allen, Philadelphia 

S. Urton, Moscow 

Sa Re,Paoli 

Sabrina Wojnaroski, Pittsburgh 

Sandra Creswell, Huntingdon 

Sarah Caspar, Downingtown 

Shane McAndrew, Prospect Park 

Sheri DeOrio, Pittsburgh 

Shirley Johannsen, York 

Silvio Fittipaldi, PhD. Philadelphia 

Sonia Liskoski, Coraopolis 

Sr. Frances Murray, Brookhaven 

Steve Bremner, Philadelphia 

Susan Porter, Lords Valley 

Susan Shaak, Reading 

Susan Verbalis, Fountain Hill 

Susan Thompson,Audubon 

Taylor Lamborn, Shillington 

Theresa Knapp, Towanda 

Thomas Morrow, Finleyville 

Thomas Swimley, Knoxville 

Timothy Kelly, MPH. Philadelphia 

Tina Stein, MD. Villanova 

Tom Macchia, PA. Hermitage 

Virginia Caldeira, Warminster 

W. Andrew Stover, Chambersburg 

Walter Tsou, MD. Philadelphia 

William Bader, Bethlehem 

William Montgomery, Pottstown 

Puerto Rico 

Sheila Ward, PhD. San juan 

Rhode Island 

Charlene V. Maker, Little Compton 

Christine Rayner, MD. Providence 

Deborah Doolittle, Wakefield 

Frances Harriman, Cumberland 

julia Gold, Providence 

Kristen jeremiah, North Kingstown 

Lynn Costa, Warwick 

Michael Dutton, Newport 

Mitch Franks, Woonsocket 

Nancy StGermain, Warwick 
606 

Timothy McBride, Bristol 

Victoria Leytin, MD. Providence 

South Carolina 

Aaron Honore, Columbia 

Connie Lippert, Seneca 

jan Modjeski, PhD. Murrells Inlet 

june Cattell, West Columbia 

Kathy Bradley, Lugoff 

Linda Winkler, Charleston 

Sara Williams, RN. Folly Beach 

Sara Hart, North Myrtle Beach 

Sarah Ledford, PA. North Augusta 

Thomas Pauley, York 

South Dakota 

Aaron Gayken, Sioux Falls 

Andrea Yarger, RN. Hot Springs 

Donald Kelley, MD. Deadwood 

james Vipond, Milbank 

Leon Roberts, Spearfish 

Ronald Ratner, Sioux Falls 

Sandy Dumke, Crooks 

Sylvia Lambert, Interior 

Thomas Martin, Custer 

Tennessee 

Scott Brooks, MD. Nashville 

David AND Carol Butler, Hermitage 

Virginia Eaddy, PhD, PhD. Knoxville 

C R Orr, Sneedville 

Charles Gee, Brentwood 

Chris Drumright, Murfreesboro 

Connie Fowler, Nashville 

Donna Viale-Gertler, Kingston Springs 

Elizabeth Floersch, Goodlettsville 

Elsie Pope, Memphis 

Genie And Bob McCombs, Kingston 

Hector Bertin, Whiteville 

Hubert Barr, Sparta 

james Davidheiser, PhD. Sewanee 

jim Steitz, Gatlinburg 

joan Mitchell, MPH. Hermitage 

joan Cahill, Bluff City 

Karen Cisler, Nashville 

Kevin Vaught, Antioch 

Keydrull Flemming, Bartlett 

Larry Johnson, Lafayette 

Laura Helfman, MD. Coalmont 

Lillian Wade, Greeneville 

Linda Raiteri, Memphis 

Mark Heald, PhD. Pleasant Hill 

Mary Bristow, )D. Brentwood 

Michele Villeneuve, Kingsport 

Robert Fingerman, ND. Monteagle 

Rocio Huet, MD. Knoxville 

Shirley Dilbeck, Niota 

Sten Vermund, MD. Nashville 

Steven Minier, Jackson 

Susan Earl, Nashville 

Susan O'Connor, Cookeville 

Terry Forrest, Bristol 

Tom Boughan, Cowan 

William Vinett, Nashville 

William Franks, Nashville 

York Quillen, Knoxville 

Texas 

Tess Bobo, DO. San Antonio 

Adele Houghton, MPH. Houston 

Alan Northcutt, MD. Waco 

Allen Sanders, Cedar Park 

Amanda Pearl, Houston 

Ana Perkins, Wimberley 

Annette Pieniazek, Houston 

Archie Gress, Austin 

Barbara Vinson, EMT. Buda 

Barbara Burton, LMT. Kerrville 

Barbara Heffel, RN. New Braunfels 

Bonnie Lynn Mackinnon, Georgetown 

Brant Kotch, JD. Houston 

Bryan R & Susan K Roberts, PhD. West 

Lake Hills 

Carina Ramirez, PhD. El Paso 

Carol Bayens, DSW. Houston 

Carolyn Engel, Mesquite 

Carroll Dartez, Houston 

Casey Pittman, Coppell 

Cat Tayler, Frisco 

Charles Dixon, Marshall 

Charles Wallace, Austin 

Christopher Dowling, Marfa 
607 

Claudia Chaffin, Georgetown 

Craig Roberts, Dallas 

Cynthia Weehler, Austin 

Dallas Windham, Dallas 

Dennis Monson, Cedar Hill 

Doyle Sebesta, DSW. Stockdale 

Dr Daniel Cohen, MD. Houston 

Ed Perry, New Braunfels 

Ed Fiedler, Austin 

Eisha Humphries, Pflugerville 

Gabrielle Theriault, MD. Austin 

George Samuel, MD. Fort Worth 

Gloria Gannaway, PhD. Austin 

Gwendolyn Green, OTR. Cedar Hill 

Homer Stevens, Medical Student. New 

Boston 

Irvin Uphoff, Dallas 

jackie Demarais, Granbury 

james Klein, PhD. Corpus Christi 

jane Williams, FNP. Houston 

jane Vanwert, PhD. Waskom 

jean Cameron, College Station 

joe Rogers, Austin 

john Day, MD. Austin 

john Jumonville, San Antonio 

joshua Seff, Mckinney 

joyce Overton, Rowlett 

Karen Winnubst, Cedar Hill 

Ken Box, Medical Student. Austin 

Kevin West, Austin 

Kristi Collins, Arlington 

Kristina Lamons, Houston 

Leana Bosley, Wylie 

Lisa Stone, MPH. Houston 

Lois Way, Fort Worth 

Margaret Fleming, The Woodlands 

Marilyn Vache, MD. Austin 

Mariu Suarez, Fort Worth 

Martha Chambers, Fort Worth 

Mary Barnard-Garcia, El Paso 

Odilia Leal-McBride, Austin 

Pam McDonnell, Duncanville 

Pamela Evans, Kemp 

Patricia Kanter-Kennedy, Houston 

Patsy Goss, Ennis 

Paul Mayer, MD. Livingston 

Phillip J Crabill, Little Elm 

Randy Roy,Rockwood 

Rebecca Trammell, Waxahachie 

Rebecca Andrews, ND. Austin 

Rebecca Marshall Marshall, Gainesville 

Rene Martinez-Meras, San Antonio 

Rita Clarke, Dallas 

Roe! Cantao, Mission 

Ronda McCarthy, MD. Waco 

Sharon Bailey, Richardson 

Sharon Gillespie, jD. Austin 

Sharon Frank, Lewisville 

Shirley Smith, Longview 

Steve Bradley, Corpus Christi 

Steve Lucas, Austin 

Sue Grossman, Houston 

Sylvia Duncan, Plano 

T. Logan, Austin 

Theodore Brazeau, Dripping Springs 

Thomas Wind berg, Austin 

Tim Duda, San Antonio 

Tom Nieland, Alamo 

Tonia Deur, RN. Amarillo 

Vincent Fonseca, MD. San Antonio 

Wanda Giraldi, Houston 

Wayne Lewis, PhD. Lubbock 

!lli!h 

Ann McMullen, Sandy 

Dave Powelson, Logan 

Diane Arnal, Saint George 

Douglas Stark. Holladay 

Helen Mulder, Salt Lake City 

james Viney, MD. Salt Lake City 

jane Baker, LMT. Salt Lake City 

jon Hager, Riverton 

Janelle Reynolds, St. George 

Keven johansen, Salt Lake City 

L. Zeveloff, Ogden 

Richard Waldo, Riverdale 

Suzanne Stensaas, PhD. Salt Lake City 

Trisha Townsend, Salt Lake City 

Virginia 

Pat Churchman, Bridgewater 

Alexandra Rush, Yorktown 
608 

Anne Sauer, Virginia Beach 

Annie Parr, Wingina 

Becky Daiss, Arlington 

Carleton Vickers, Reston 

Carol Rideout, Williamsburg 

Carolyn Fischer, Nellysford 

Charles E. Maddox, Broadway 

Chet Hepburn, Arlington 

Christine Payden-Travers, Lynchburg 

Diana Franco, Broadlands 

Don Barth, Ashland 

Donna Feirtag, Arlington 

Donna Malvin, Williamsburg 

Dr. Alexander Henrich, MD. Hamburg 

Elaine Becker, OTR. Roanoke 

Elaine Fischer, OTR. Roanoke 

Glenn Shean, PhD. Williamsburg 

Gretchen Boise, MD. Salem 

Hobart Ganter, Lexington 

jerome Paulson, MD. Alexandria 

)err Redpath, LMT. Charlottesville 

Kat Karnes, Vinton 

Kenda Hanuman, Buckingham 

Laura Anderko, RN. Annandale 

Laurie LaGoe, Alexandria 

Lawrence jacksina, Charlottesville 

Lisa Fues, Alexandria 

Liz Dyer, Alexandria 

Louise Perini, Springfield 

Melissa Peters, Henrico 

Michael johnson, Ruther Glen 

Michele Roberts, MSW. Springfield 

Natalie DeBoer, PT. Richmond 

Pat Rollo, Herndon 

Patricia Liske, Falls Church 

Robert Poignant, PhD. Lynchburg 

Robert M/Carol G Reed, Hardyville 

Samantha Ahdoot, MD. Alexandria 

Sandy Newhouse, PhD. Charlottesville 

Sergio Rimola, MD. Herndon 

Steven Kranowski, Blacksburg 

Takeshi Imajo, MD. Richmond 

Tina Smusz, MD. Catawba 

William Stewart, MSW. Arlington 

Yousef Zarbalian, MD. Me Lean 

Daniel johnston, MD. Kingshill 

joan Shaw, Manchester Center 

joel Trupin, PhD. Marshfield 

Bernard Du Breuil, White River junction 

Claire Trask, Londonderry 

Donald Morrison, West Windsor 

Douglas McCorkle, PT. East Dummerston 

jeffrey Phillips, Shelburne 

jim Snee, Center Rutland 

judith Hazelton, Bennington 

julia Imbarrato, Newfane 

Ken Lesem, Burlington 

Linda Satter, Manchester Center 

Lisa )ablow, Brattleboro 

Patricia Gahagan, East Calais 

Paul Dahm, Middlebury 

Phyllis Erwin, RN. Guilford 

Virgin Islands 

Daniel johnston, MD. Kingshill 

Vermont 

joan Shaw, Manchester Center 

joel Trupin, PhD. Marshfield 

Bernard Du Breuil, White River junction 

Claire Trask, Londonderry 

Donald Morrison, West Windsor 

Douglas McCorkle, PT. East Dummerston 

jeffrey Phillips, Shelburne 

jim Snee, Center Rutland 

judith Hazelton, Bennington 

julia Imbarrato, Newfane 

Ken Lesem, Burlington 

Linda Satter, Manchester Center 

Lisa jablow, Brattleboro 

Patricia Gahagan, East Calais 

Paul Dahm, Middlebury 

Phyllis Erwin, RN. Guilford 

Washington 

Bruce Amundson, MD. Shoreline 

Steven Gilbert, PhD. Seattle 

Alice Chew, EMT. Seattle 

Sally Ketcham, Seattle 

George T. johnson, MD. Seattle 

Eric Luria, MD. Gig Harbor 

john Mensher, MD. Seattle 
609 

Adam Levine, Seattle 

Alexa Tullis, PhD. Gig Harbor 

Alfred Colter, Yakima 

Alice Royer, RN. Seattle 

Amy Wells, MD. Seattle 

Amy Hansen, Rockport 

Andrea Hanses, Duvall 

Angela Smith, Burien 

Anne Schreibe, Burien 

Anne Tracy Bier, M Ed. Seattle 

Ardeth L. Weed, Edmonds 

B. Kate Rae, RN. Battle Ground 

Barbara Phinney, RN. Seattle 

Barbara Turner, Lynnwood 

Barbara L Wood, Seattle 

Beth Call, Walla Walla 

Brenda Michaels, Issaquah 

Candace LaPorte, Silverdale 

Catherine Caron, Spokane 

Charles Meconis, PhD. Seattle 

Christian Bookter, Goldendale 

Chuck Rohrer, Seattle 

Dale Birdsell, PhD. Tacoma 

Dan Carpita, Esq. Enumclaw 

Dani Maron-Oliver, RN. Longview 

Daniel Rosenfeld, Renton 

Dave Popoff, LMT. Colville 

David Edwards, MD. Olympia 

David Dalton, Puyallup 

Debbie Spear, Snohomish 

Debby Tsuang, MD. Seattle 

Dell Rhodes, PhD. White Salmon 

Dianna MacLeod, Langley 

Doug Baier, EMT. Poulsbo 

Dr. Darlene Townsend, PhD. Spokane 

Earl White, Arlington 

Edward Mills, Bellevue 

Edwin And Margaret Tegenfeldt, MD. 

Pacific Beach 

Elaine Nelson, PhD. Port Townsend 

Elizabeth Wise, MD. Cle Elum 

Elizabeth Hickman, RN. Auburn 

Elizabeth Dawson, Port Hadlock 

Erica Frank, MD. Sedro Woolley 

Florence Friedman, Seattle 

Francis Wood, MD. Seattle 

Franklin Vincenzi, Arlington 

G. G., Orting 

Gary Bennett, Bellingham 

George · Please Select Girvin, MD. 

Spokane 

Gill Fahrenwald, Olympia 

Glen Anderson, Lacey 

Glenda Lovejoy, Lyle 

Gregory Speltz, MSW. Seattle 

Gudrun Murti, MD. Seattle 

james Rechetnick, Everett 

james Livingston, PhD. Sammamish 

james Mulcare, Clarkston 

janice McLemore, Silverdale 

jennifer Wyman-Clemons, MD. Univ Place 

jillian Shea, Vancouver 

joan Peter, Gig Harbor 

joanne Mayhew, DO. Olympia 

joe Thompson, Kalama 

john B. Neighbor, Bellingham 

johni Prinz, Aberdeen 

jonathan Walter, Medical Student. 

Tumwater 

jude Patton, PA. Sedro Woolley 

judith Cohen, Seattle 

judith Coates, Sequim 

julia Edwards, MD. Seattle 

julia Cochrane, Port Townsend 

julie A. Smith, RN. Seattle 

Karen johnson, PhD. Anacortes 

Katherine Nelson, Kent 

Kathryn Alexandra, RN. Anacortes 

Kim Dickey, Leavenworth 

Kirk Taylor, Yelm 

Kristin Adams, MD. Burton 

Lea Plumier, Brush Prairie 

Linda Miller, Bow 

Linda Ellsworth, Eastsound 

Lisa Vandermay, RN. Renton 

Lisa Silverman, Bellingham 

Liz Marshall, Bellingham 

Lloyd Hedger, Tacoma 

Lucille Marchand, MD. Seattle 

Lynne Bannerman, RN. Seattle 

M H, Bellevue 

Marc Daniel, Mount Vernon 
610 

Mare Wahosi, Gig Harbor 

MARGARET HASHMI, Bellingham 

Marjorie Curci, Beaver 

Mark Beringer, Bothell 

Mark Canright, Rockport 

Martina Boyd, RN. Bellingham 

Mary Sebek, JD. Seattle 

Mary Travers, Seattle 

Mary Peete, Bellingham 

Mary-Ann Kirsling, Pasco 

Matthew Courter, Seattle 

Mercedita Del Valle, PhD. Port Townsend 

Meryle A. Korn, Bellingham 

Michael Gamble, Seattle 

Michael Arveson, Lake Tapps 

Michael Lyman, Colville 

Michael Lippman, Seattle 

Michael And Barbara Hill, Elbe 

Mika Godzich, MD. Tonasket 

Mike Betz, Bellingham 

Mike And Kathy Sherman, Seattle 

Miriam Israel, Seattle 

Mr. Shelley Dahlgren, PhD, PhD. Issaquah 

Nan McMurry, MSW. Seattle 

Nancy Chandler, Arlington 

Nancy Hart, MD. Bellingham 

Nancy Ellingham, Mercer Island 

Nancy White, Spokane Valley 

Nora Davidson, Bremerton 

P.A. Woodburn, Bainbridge Island 

Pamela Wimp, Lacey 

Pamela Bendix, Bainbridge Island 

Pat Bereczki, Vancouver 

Patt Doyle, Heisson 

Peggy Page, Stanwood 

Peter Henry, Edmonds 

Polly Tarpley, Poulsbo 

Rae Pearson, Seattle 

Rafe Dimmitt, Seattle 

Raul De La Rosa, Olympia 

Rebecca McDonough, Eastsound 

Rebecca Canright, Olympia 

Richard Rust, MD. Seattle 

Richard & Elizabeth Blakney, MPH. 

Seattle 

Richard W. Emmons, MD. Vashon 

Robert Thompson, MD. Enumclaw 

Robert Gabriel, PhD. Olympia 

Robert Brown, Fircrest 

Robert B. Kaplan, PhD. Port Angeles 

Ruth Darden, JD. Seattle 

Ruthe Rugh, FNP. Bothell 

Sally Sheck, LMT. Seattle 

Sammy Low, Stanwood 

Sarah Salter, Lynnwood 

Seth Snapp, PT. Bellingham 

Sharon Fetter, Puyallup 

Sheri Staley, Shelton 

Stan Freidberg, MD. Vancouver 

Stephanie Jaeger, MD. Lynden 

Stephen Durbin, EMT. Coupeville 

Susan Crampton, MD. Twisp 

Susan Doederlein, MD. Seattle 

Susan Bigda, RN. Seattle 

Susan Wilson, Kent 

Susan Danver, Olympia 

Susan Arndt, Mount Vernon 

T J Thompson, MD. Gig Harbor 

Teresa Bryan, Kelso 

Terry Cook, PhD. Seattle 

Tim Burns, Federal Way 

Toniann Reading, Sultan 

Tonya Stiffler, Shoreline 

Tracy Ouellette, MD. Bow 

William Waldman, MD. Seattle 

William P. Ostrander, Jr., Bellingham 

Willliam F. Nerin MA, Gig Harbor 

Wisconsin 

joseph A. Meyer, LCSW. Amery 

John And Martha Stoltenberg, Elkhart 

Lake 

Alexandra Bryant, Medical Student. 

Madison 

Anne Slaughter-Perrote, PA. Madison 

Beth Beck, Madison 

Charlotte Serazio, Milwaukee 

Claire Russell, Oconomowoc 

Cynthia Betts, Kenosha 

Daniel Mason, EMT. Madison 

David Henning, DrPH. Marshfield 

David Wyatt, MD. Milwaukee 
611 

David And Betty Knutzen, MD. Waunakee 

Delene Hanson, Hales Corners 

Denise Merino, Elm Grove 

Don Ferber, Madison 

Donette Erdmann, RN. Sheboygan 

Eric Robson, Madison 

George Perkins, VMD. Madison 

Grace Golata, Milwaukee 

Greg Koshak,Larsen 

Harvey Dym, LCSW. Madison 

Jackie Tryggeseth, Grand Marsh 

james Laird, Waupun 

jan Turner, Colfax 

joan McCormick, Milwaukee 

jody Slocum, Downing 

joseph Novak, MD. Milwaukee 

judy E. james, RN. Dodgeville 

Katharine Waggener Waggener, RN. 

Fitchburg 

Keith johnson, Muscoda 

Kelvin S. Rodolfo, PhD. Viroqua 

Lowell Huber, Cornell 

Lynn Shoemaker, Whitewater 

Marcia Bringardner, RN. Wind Lake 

Marcia Halligan, Viroqua 

Mark M. Giese, Mount Pleasant 

Mary Koller, RN. West Allis 

Michael litis, PhD. Madison 

Michele Brogunier, MD. Madison 

Mike E. Miley, MD. Madison 

Molly Brewer, Milwaukee 

Patrick D. Meyer, MD. Middleton 

Peter Sigmann, MD. Sturgeon Bay 

Richard Ouren, Muscoda 

Rick Redfield, PA. Soldiers Grove 

Steven Rogers, Cornell 

Susan Michetti, Mount Horeb 

Terry Gunning, Madison 

Thomas Chisholm, MD. Chippewa Falls 

Thomas Paulsen, MD. Ladysmith 

West Virginia 

Jenni Kovich, Leon 

Mary A Borchers, Romney 

Wyoming 

Diane Verna, Alta 

jessica Eastman, OTR. jackson 
612 

LATINOS OPPOSE SCOTT PRUITT FOR EPA ADMINISTRATOR 

January 17, 2017 

Dear Senator: 

As Latino leaders, members and representatives of the undersigned organizations committed to 

efforts that support our communities' health, advancement, safety and well-being, and on behalf 

of the concerned communities we represent, we strongly urge you to oppose the president-elect's 

nominee to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott 

Pruitt. 

Mr. Pruitt has made a career of suing the Environmental Protection Agency, and has used his 

office to attack lifesaving public health protections time and time again. His record exhibits a 

reckless disregard for public health and a deeply troubling contempt for the very mission of the 

agency he has been nominated to lead. Mr. Pruitt denies the science of climate change, suing to 

block national standards to fight this crisis; he has fought against clean air protections, opposing 

the Mercury and Air Taxies standard which would prevent premature deaths and asthma attacks; 

he has sued the EPA to overturn clean water safeguards for more than half of the nation's 

waterways, including streams that feed into the drinking water supplies of hundreds of millions 

of Americans. Scott Pruitt is simply unfit to lead the EPA and, if confirmed, would pose a danger 

to our communities. 

Latinos overwhelmingly support actions to fight climate change. We recognize the importance of 

protecting the environment: 97 percent of Latinos agree we have a moral obligation to take care 

of our environment. In December, the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, a coalition of 40 of 

the leading Latino organizations nationwide, voiced their opposition to Mr. Pruitt's nomination, 

stating that they were "particularly troubled by this choice," and pointing to the prevalence of 

asthma and other respiratory diseases among Latinos living near polluting power plants, truck 

routes, and factories; as well as the large number Latinos who are employed in outdoor 

occupations, including agriculture, where they are exposed to health hazards, bad air quality, and 

the impacts of extreme weather. 

Americans did not vote for more air pollution, taxies, or dirty water, nor did they vote to undo 

critical protections that safeguard our children and communities. We did not vote for more 

climate change or dirty energy. Putting the EPA in Mr. Pruitt's hands does just that: he will 

threaten our children's health, tum back the clock on landmark efforts to clean up our air, water 

and climate, and imperil the United States' position as a global clean energy leader. 

We call on you to publicly declare your commitment to stand up for our right to breathe clean 

air, drink clean water, and be protected from pollution. We urge you to vote against all 

legislative proposals that would in any way repeal, weaken or undermine these rights, laws and 

safeguards. Our community is counting on you to protect us by voting to reject Scott Pruitt's 

nomination for Administrator of the U.S. EPA. 
613 

Sincerely, 

Mildred Real 

Founder and CEO 

America Verde 

Irene Vilar 

Founder and CEO 

Americas for Conservation +the Arts 

Arturo Carmona 

Arturo for Congress Campaign 

Ronald Blackburn Moreno 

President and CEO 

ASPIRA Association 

Marce Graudi?s 

Founder I Director 

Azul 

Vanessa Smith 

Publisher 

Chica Magazine 

Lisa Hoyos 

Director 

Climate Parents 

OmarGomez 

Director of Programs and Public Policy 

Council of Mexican Federations (COFEM) 

Soledad Haren 

Producer 

Epoca Verde, Green Living, Green Times 

Virginia Ruiz 

Director of Occupational and Environmental Health 

Farmworker Justice 

Mark Magana 

President & CEO 

GreenLatinos 
614 

Laura Esquivel 

Director of National Advocacy 

Hispanic Federation 

Cristobal Alex 

President 

Latino Victory Project 

Luis Torres 

Director of Policy and Legislation 

League of United Latin American Citizens 

Brent Wilkes 

National Executive Director 

League of United Latin American Citizens 

Amy L. Hinojosa 

President and CEO 

MANA, A National Latina Organization 

Ben Monterroso 

Executive Director 

Mi Familia Vota 

Samuel Molina 

California State Director 

Mi Familia Vota 

Eduardo Sainz 

Arizona Deputy Director 

Mi Familia Vota Arizona 

Carla Castedo 

Colorado State Director 

Mi Familia Vota Colorado 

Esteban Garces 

Florida State Director 

Mi Familia Vota Florida 

Ben Monterroso 

Executive Director 

Mi Familia Vota 

Carlos Duarte 

Texas State Director 
615 

Mi Familia Vota Texas 

Elena Rios, MD, MSPH, F ACP 

President & CEO 

National Hispanic Medical Association 

Sergio Rirnola, MD 

National Hispanic Medical Association 

Olga Trujillo 

Director of Public Policy 

National Latin@ Network ofCasa de Esperanza 

Erika Castro 

Progressive Leadership Alliance ofNevada 

Hilda Nucete 

Protegete Program Director 

Protegete: Nuestro Aire, Nuestra Salud 

Carlos Zegarra 

Director 

Sacharnama 

Alejandra Nunez 

Sierra Club 

Dr Mary A Haberl 

Owner 

So!arFour LLC 

Tony DeFalc 

Deputy Director 

Verde 

Ana Lucia Garcia 

Concerned Citizen 

Paty Romero Lankao, PhD 

UNCR 

Gerald Torres 

Professor I Concerned Citizen 

Fernando Cazares 

Urban Planner I Concerned Citizen 
616 

Graciela Cabello 

Concerned Citizen 

Voto Latino 

The Staff and Board Members of 

Voces Verdes 
617 

"*· LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS 

January 12, 2017 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Oppose Scott Pruitt for Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 

Dear Senator: 

On behalf of our millions of members, the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) works to rurn environmental 

values into national, state, and local priorities. Each year, LCV publishes the 1\.Jationa/ En11ironmental Scorecard, which 

details the voting records of members of Congress on environmental legislation. 1be Scorecard is distributed to LCV 

members, concerned voters nationwide, and the mecha. 

\X' c urge you to oppose the nomination of Scott Pruitt for Administrator of the Environmental Protection .. Agency 

(EPA) and we want to be unequivocal that we will score this vote. This is a departure from our standard procedure 

of sending a letter to the full Senate when a floor vote is imminent and noting a given vote will be considered for 

inclusion in the 1\fationa! Environmental Scorecard. Given Scott Pruitt's radical record and the far-reaching damage he 

could do at the helm of the EPA, this is not the time for standard protocoL 

The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency is. to protect human health and the environment- our ait, 

water, and land. Unfortunately, Scott Pruitt's record is completely antithetical to this vitally important mission. Not 

only docs he deny the overv,.rhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity, 

as Oklahoma Attorney General he has sued the EPA on numerous occasions to block efforts to cut carbon 

pollution and weaken safeguards for our air and water. 

In addition, Pruitt has extremely close ties to fossil fuel interests, which have donated more than $340,000 in 

campaign contributions to him during his political career and nearly $3.5 million to the Republican Attorneys 

General Association during the time he was at the helm of that organization. Not only chd he defend and echo 

groups like Exxon Mobil's denial of climate science, he literally sent letters to the EPA and other government 

agencies that were written almost entirely by fossil fuellobb;~sts. 

Pruitt fails the basic test of basing decisions on sound science and upholding our nation's bedrock environmental 

and public health laws. \"Xre urge you in the strongest possible terms to oppose his nomination and assure rou this 

yotc will definitely be included in the 2017 Scorecard. If you need more information, please call my office at (202) 

785-8683 and ask to speak with a member of our Government Relations team. 

Sincerely, 

Gene Karpinski 

President 

1920 L Street NW, Suite 800 • Washington, DC 20036 • 202-785-8683 • Fax: 202-835-0491 

lcv@lcv.org • www.lcv.org 
618 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

PRESIDENT 

Bl'lan Cladoosby 

SwmomiShTnbe 

FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT 

FawnShllrp 

Quma1111 lmiran NiJIJOn 

RECORDING SECRETARY 

Aaron Payment 

SiJult Sle Marie Tribe of Chippewa 

lnri~anso!Mich~gifn 

TREASURER 

W, Ron Allen 

Jamestown S'KiaKam T~ 

REGIONAL VICE· 

PRESIOENTS 

ALASKA 

JenyiNI!oC 

Nat1ve Vrl/agcofTanacross 

EASTERN OKLAHOMA 

Jae-B)'fd 

CherolreeNaiiOil 

GREAT PLAINS 

Le011naer McOCMM.Id 

SpintL.a!lt!Na!Km 

MIDWEST 

Roger Rader 

PQi(agonBandofPDtawato/111 

NoRTHEAST 

Lance Gumbs 

S!urmecock Indian Nation 

NORTHWEST 

Mel Sheldon, Jr, 

T!ila/ipTn'bcs 

PACIFIC 

Jack Potter, Jr. 

~sngRandleria 

RocKY MOUNTAIN 

Oarrfn Old Coyo!CI 

Crow Narron 

SOUTHEAST 

Larry Townsend 

Lumt:reeT/iDf! 

SOUTHERN PLAINS 

LianaOonen 

Prnine Band a! Porawa/orm Nation 

SOUTHWEST 

Joe Garcia 

OhkayOwrngehPueb!o 

WESTERN 

Bruce Ignacio 

Ule/ndri~nTrrbe 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

Jacqueline Pata 

TI"!}' 

NCAI HEADQUARTERS 

1516 P Street. NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

202.466 7767 

202.466.7797 fax 

WWW.I1CSl Org 

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS 

January 18,2016 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Cbairman 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Thomas Carper 

Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Indian Country's Concerns with EPA Administrator Nominee Scott Pruitt 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NC\1), the oldest, 

largest, and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native organization 

serving the broad interests of Tribal governments and communities, I am writing to 

express our deep concern with the nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott 

Pruitt to be the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) based 

on his history of fighting environmental regulations and the new Administration's 

statements denying the existence of climate change. The continuing impacts of 

climate change are a major concern of Tribal Nations and, before this Committee 

votes to move forward with Attorney General Pruitt's nomination to lead the EPA, 

it must thoroughly consider the potential impacts that his nomination will have on 

climate change, the protection of natural resources, and protection of Tribal trust 

and treaty rights. 

American Indians and Alaska Natives are disproportionately impacted by 

climate change due to our geographical areas and direct connection and reliance on 

the surrounding environments. It is threatening to destroy our lands, waters, and 

natural resources, which will impact our traditional and customary ways of life that 

has been sustainable for thousands of years. The well-documented plight of Alaska 

Native villages is probably the most profound manifestation of the climate crisis and 

requires focused, high priority attention from the federal government. NCAI's Tribal 

leadership and members have spoken strongly on climate change by passing four 

resolutions in the past four years calling for action and setting Tribal Climate Change 

Principles calling on further federal action and partnership with Tribal governments. 

The federal government's treaty and trust responsibilities to protect Indian 

lands includes the duty to protect lands from the impacts of climate change, which 

requires not only that sufficient federal resources be equitably allocated to address 

climate change, but that Tribes be included as partners to solve these issues. Federal 

programs and policies must allow Tribal Nations to engage effectively in adaptation 

and mitigation strategies that will help ensure the integrity of our cultures, 

homelands, infrastructures, and services. Further, it is imperative that federal 

agencies enforce Tribal treaty and reserved rights to both on- and off-resenration 

resources, 
619 

NCAI Letter- Climate Change Concerns Regarding Pruitt EPA Administrator Nomination 

Page 2 of2 

The EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment means that it plays an 

essential role in fighting climate change-related impacts. Due to its charge, EPA also has a sacred 

responsibility to uphold and protect Tribal trust and treaty rights through the protection of Tribal 

natural resources. In fact, the EPA acknowledges the importance of reviewing how agency actions 

will impact treaty rights in its recent policy guidance EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribes: GuidancejiJr Discussing Tn'ba/Tmaty R{ghts. 

Since the EPA is critical to combating climate change and protecting Tribal trust and treaty 

rights, Indian Country is deeply concerned with Attorney General Pruitt's nomination to head the 

Agency. It is our understanding that, in his role as Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma, 

Pruitt has repeatedly filed suits against the EPA for its regulations seeking to protect the 

environment. Further, his nomination comes from an incoming Administration which claims that 

climate change is a "hoax" and questions whether the EPA should continue to exist. 

This Committee must ensure that Attorney General Pruitt understands and acknowledges 

the realities of human impacts on global climate change, the need for the EPA and federal 

regulations to protect the environment, and the importance of EP /I.'s role in protecting Tribal lands, 

waters, and natural resources. \X'e must get his commitment on the record to sustain the EPA's role 

in fighting climate change and protecting Tribal trust and treaty rights. Without these 

acknowledgments, Indian Country cannot support Attorney General Pruitt's nomination for 

Administrator of the EPA. 

\\" e are at a critical moment in combating the increasing climate changes effects from 

human-made sources. Indian Country, the United States, and the world cannot afford to take a 

backseat role in fighting climate change. 

Sincerely, 

'(3.<-~ cU-.-_.,__Qtr 

Brian Cladoosby 

President 

Enclosed: 

NCAI Resolution #PHX-16-058- United States l:'ederaiAgency Consultation, Consent, Funding, and 

Actions to Address Climate Change Impact.r to Tn'bal Treaty and Trust Resources 

NCAI Resolution #SD-15-007- Calling on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to 

Adopt an Agreement that Upholds the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 

N CAl Resolution #SD-15-024 - J upport for the Tribal Climate Change Principles: Responding to Federal 

Policies and Actions to Addrm Climate Change dowment and its .Swift Implementation by the tederal Got•emment 

N CAl Resolution #REN -13-020 -Adopting Guidance Principles to Address the Impact.r of Climate Change 
620 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTE'£ 

PRESIDENT 

SrianCiadoosby 

Swmomis/lTriOO 

FIRST V!CE-PRES!OENT 

Fawn Sharp 

QumeultlndmnNetion 

RECORDING SECRETARY 

Aaron Payment 

Sault Ste, Marie Tribe of Chippewa 

Jndian:sofMichigan 

TREASURER 

W.RonAIIen 

Jamf!stownS'I<laiJam Tribe 

REGIONAL VICE~ 

PRESIDENTS 

ALASKA 

Jerry isaac 

Nativ~Vf//ageofTanaeross 

EASTERN 0KLAI10MA 

Joe Byrd 

C/:lemkoo Nalk!n 

GREAT PLAINS 

LeanderMeOon;1ld 

SplfflLakeNabt:Jn 

MIDWEST 

Rog-er Rader 

Pokagon EJ.Jnd of Po/awatomi 

NORTHEAST 

Lance Gumbs 

ShmnecocklndianNa!iDn 

NORTHWEST 

Mel Sheldon, Jr. 

Tu/a/Jp Tribes 

PACIFIC 

Jack Potter, Jr. 

ROOdngRandleria 

ROCK\' MOUNTAIN 

DaninOidCoyole 

CrowNa/Jon 

SOUTHEAST 

LiirryTownsond 

LumbooTribe 

SOUTHERN PlAINS 

UanaOnnan 

Prairw Band of Polawalomi Nati:Jn 

SOUTHWEST 

Joe Garcia 

OhkayO.Vmgeh~bltJ 

WESTERN 

B!'lJCBignaclo 

Ule/ndii>nTnbe 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

JacquelinaPata 

"""" 

NCAI HEAOQUAR;TERS 

1516 P Street, N.W. 

Washington. DC 20005 

202.466.7767 

202.46£.7797 fax 

www.nca< org 

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS 

The National Congress of American Indians 

Resolution #PHX-16-058 

TITLE: United States Federal Agency Consultation, Consent, Funding, and 

Actions to Address Climate Change Impacts to Tribal Treaty and Trust 

Resources 

WHEREAS, we, the members of the National Congress of American Indians 

of the United States, invoking the divine blessing of the Creator upon our efforts and 

purposes, in order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the inherent sovereign 

rights of our Indian nations, rights secured under Indian treaties and agreements with 

the United States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are entitled under the 

laws and Constitution of the United States, to enlighten the public toward a better 

understanding of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and otherwise 

promote the health, safety and welfare of the Indian people, do hereby establish and 

submit the following resolution; and 

WHEREAS, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was 

established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national organization of American 

Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments; and 

WHEREAS, Indigenous peoples in the U.S., including 567 federallyrecognized Tribes, are facing immediate and significant impacts from climate change; 

and 

WHEREAS, a growing body of literature illustrates the unique issues facing 

Tribes regarding climate change, including the recently developed Primer on Climate 

Change and Indigenous Peoples, Guidelines for Considering Traditional Know/edges 

(TKs) in Climate Change Initiatives, and the special issue of the peer-reviewed journal 

Climatic Change, Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples in the United States: 

Impacts, Experiences and Actions; and 

WHEREAS, furthermore, the federal government is beginning to 

acknowledge the disproportionate threats of climate change to Indigenous Peoples 

through administrative and congressional reports such as the J"' National Climate 

Assessment and the 2014 President's State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on 

Climate Preparedness and Resilience (Task Force); and 

WHEREAS, where the Northwest Tribes commit to the development of 

guiding principles and exploration of the possibility of creating a unified mechanism 

to incorporate the principles into an action plan to address the impacts of climate 

change that wi11 protect our treaty rights, inherent and indigenous rights, including 

those contained in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 

(Declaration), our health and the health of the environment, economies, and way of 

life; and 
621 

NCAI 2016 Annual Resolution PHX-16-058 

WHEREAS, based upon eight principles developed by the Northwest Tribes to guide the 

federal government in the development and implementation of administrative and legislative 

actions related to Indigenous Peoples and climate change; and 

WHEREAS, the principles address many of the recommendations made by the Task Force 

and these principles pertain directly to federally-recognized Tribes, but may also apply indirectly to 

state-recognized Tribes and unrecognized Tribes as they are also in need of support to address 

immediate and projected climate impacts and to ensure access to climate resources; and 

WHEREAS, adequate response to the threat of climate change requires action by Tribes 

and federal, state and local governments and the U.S. federal government's trust responsibility to 

federally-recognized Tribes includes the protection oflndian lands and Tribal rights to access those 

lands as well as those lands in which treaty and trust resources are held; and 

WHEREAS, the trust responsibility includes the duty to protect lands from the impacts of 

climate change. Federal resources to address climate change must be allocated to Tribes equitably 

and in sufficient quantity so that Tribes can engage effectively in adaptation and mitigation 

strategies that will help ensure the integrity of their cultures, homelands, infrastructures, and 

services; and enforce Tribal treaty and reserved rights to both on- and off-reservation resources; and 

WHEREAS, in FY 2016, the Department of Interior awarded $8.6 million through the 

Tribal Climate Resilience Program, but the total amount requested from tribes exceeded $25.5 

million and these requested funds do not take into account the needs among tribes facing 

displacement and relocation, emergency management and infrastructure, impacts to culturally 

important plants, fish and wildlife species, and public health impacts, among others; and 

WHEREAS, the current Administration has taken strides that support Tribal measures to 

cope with climate change and environmental justice, including, but not limited to, the November 5, 

2009, Executive Memo directing agency heads to submit a detailed plan of actions that agencies 

will take to implement the policies; Executive Order 13175 - Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments; and Department of Interior Secretarial Order 3289 - Addressing the 

Impacts of Climate Change on America's Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resource; 

and Executive Order 12898 -Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations; and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Executive Order 13175, U.S. federal agencies have a legal 

obligation to effectively engage in Government-to-Government consultations with consent from 

Tribes on all climate change issues, including representation in international organizations, formal 

consultation in the extraction, transport and export of coal, oil and natural gas, and representation 

on federal climate change adaptation and mitigation initiatives including the United Nations 

Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP 21 Paris Agreement. 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Congress of American 

Indians does strongly urge that U.S. federal agencies immediately engage and work with individual 

tribes on a Government-to-Government basis and conduct formal and effective consultations to 

reach and agree to consent to address the climate change issues unique to each tribe including treaty 

and reserved rights, and the management of and access to trust resources on ceded and ancestral 

lands; and 

Page 2 of 4 
622 

NCAI 2016 Annual Resolution PHX-16-058 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI calls upon Congress and the Administration to 

work with federal agencies, the Office of Management and Budget, the Government Accountability 

Office and others to identify the full costs facing tribes from the impacts of climate change and to 

ensure that federal budget allocations for tribes to address climate are adequate; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI also calls upon all federal agencies, 

specifically the Department of Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs, with tribal climate change 

programs, to work with tribes to review the categories for fund dispersal and ensure their 

effectiveness for meeting tribal goals and needs; specifically, NCAI recommends Tribes and 

intertribal consortia conduct a review of the 9 categories for the BIA Climate Change Grants and 

provide feedback about the efficacy of those categories, establish priorities where funds should be 

allocated, and recommendations for strengthening and sustaining Tribal capacity including: 

Sustained and long-term funding to support the needs of tribes to engage in climate 

change adaptation and mitigation. 

Concept of coordinated block funding - multiple sources of funding that are coalesced 

to reduce the burden to tribes and increase flexibility of tribal allocation of funds. 

Capacity building funding to focus on engaging tribal leadership and building the 

knowledge of tribal leaders. 

Engaging and building the knowledge of tribal leadership and native communities 

through education and outreach. 

Dedicated funding for tribal staff to work on climate change to build internal tribal 

capacity; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI in consultation with regional consortia and 

Tribal governments, organize and establish a National Tribal Climate Change Workgroup to 

develop strategies and coordinate actions to ensure effective implementation of the Tribal Climate 

Change Principles: Responding To Federal Policies And Actions To Address Climate Change and 

Government-to-Government consultations with and consent from Tribes related to climate change 

impacts, adaptation, mitigation, and funding to meet the needs of Tribal governments and 

communities; and 

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be the policy ofNCAI until it is 

withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution. 

Page 3 of 4 
623 

NCAI 2016 Annual Resolution PHX-16-058 

CERTIFICATION 

The foregoing resolution was adopted by the General Assembly at the 2016 Annual Session of the 

National Congress of American Indians, held at the Phoenix Convention Center, October 9'h- 14th 

2016, with a quorum present. 

--~.;D-'h c~J~ ~an Cladoosby, President 

ATTEST: 

Page 4 of4 
624 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

PRESIDENT 

BrianCiadooeby 

SWrnom.isllTribe 

FIRST V!CEwPRES!QENT 

Randy Nob 

NanagomwttTribe 

RECORDING SECRETARY 

Aaron Payment 

Sault S/e. Mane Tnbe of Chippewa 

!nd,:,nsofM!Chi(}BI1 

TREASURER 

W.RonAIIen 

Jame.s!o1111 S'fQal/am Tnbe 

REGIONAL VICE· 

PRESIDENTS 

ALASKA 

Jerrylaaac 

Native Village of Tanacross 

EASTERN OKLAHOMA 

Joe Byrd 

ClleroireeNaOOn 

GREAT PLAINS 

L.aanderMcDor'lald 

SplfTIL3~Na~on 

MIDWEST 

RogerRIId8l' 

Pof<.agorrBandofPota~~oatomi 

NORTHEAST 

L..anci!IGumb~~o 

Shmnecoclo:!ndianNation 

NORTHWEST 

Fa....,., Sharp 

Qumau/l!ndmnNation 

PACIFIC 

Jack Potte-r, Jr. 

Red:ilngR~ria 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN 

Dan1n01dCo)'Qte 

CrowNatfQn 

SouTHEAST 

L..arryTo....,.,send 

Lum~inbe 

SOUTHERN PLAINS 

Liana Onnen 

Pralfle/3andoff'otawalom!Nal!on 

SouTHWEST 

Jo.eGan:la 

Ohl<ay Owingeh Pueblo 

WESTERN 

Bruce Ignacio 

Ulelnd1afJ Tnbe 

EXECUTIVE DJRECTOR Jacqueline Pata 

-

NCAI HEADQUARTERS 

1516PStreet, NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

202.4667767 

202.466.7797 fax 

www nca• org 

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS 

The National Congress of American Indians 

Resolution #SD-15-007 

TITLE: Calling on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 

Change to Adopt an Agreement that Upholds the Rights of Indigenous 

Peoples 

WHEREAS, we, the members of the National Congress of American Indians 

of the United States, invoking the divine blessing of the Creator upon our efforts and 

purposes, in order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the inherent sovereign 

rights of our Indian nations, rights secured under Indian treaties and agreements with 

the United States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are entitled under the 

laws and Constitution of the United States, to enlighten the public toward a better 

understanding of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and otherwise 

promote the health, safety and welfare of the Indian people, do hereby establish and 

submit the following resolution; and 

WHEREAS, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was 

established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national organization of American 

Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments; and 

WHEREAS, climate change is one of the greatest threat facing the peoples of 

the world today; and 

WHEREAS, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food 

stated in 2010 that Climate Change is the single biggest threat to global food security 

in the future; and 

WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 

composed of thousands of scientists from around the world, has found that Indigenous 

Peoples are among the peoples most vulnerable to climate change and are 

disproportionately affected by it; and 

WHEREAS, Indigenous Peoples depend upon the health of their ecosystems 

and natural resources for social, economic, and cultural vitality; and climate change 

threatens to destroy indigenous ways of life that have been sustainable for thousands 

of years; and 

WHEREAS, climate change thus poses a serious threats to the inherent and 

Treaty rights of Indigenous Peoples as affirmed in the United Nations Declaration on 

the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including, inter alia, rights to subsistence, 

traditional lands and resources, health, productive capacity of the environment, 

cultural heritage, sacred sites and free prior and informed consent; and 
625 

NCA12015 Annual Resolution SD-15-007 

WHEREAS, the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

(UNFCCC) will meet in Paris at the end of 2015 to reach a universally binding agreement to 

address climate change; and 

WHEREAS, the goal of the UNFCCC as stated in its Article 2 is: "to achieve . . . 

stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent 

dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system .... ;" and 

WHEREAS, that goal as presently contemplated by States is to keep temperature rise 

within 2 degrees C, however, Indigenous Peoples and many scientists consider this goal to be 

inadequate to protect the ways of life of Indigenous Peoples as well as the survival of small island 

states and Peoples; and 

WHEREAS, in connection with an ongoing review of the adequacy of the 2 degree C goal, 

the Structured Expert Dialog, (SED) report concludes that at 2 degrees C of warming, 

" ... indigenous people[s] would be at risk of loss of land and cultural and natural heritage, and 

cultural practices embedded in livelihoods would be disrupted"; therefore Indigenous Peoples are 

calling for that goal to be lowered to no more than 1.5 degrees C of warming at COP 21. 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Congress of American 

Indians (NCAI) calls on the Parties to the UNFCCC at the 21" Conference of the Parties (COP 21) 

in Paris to adopt an agreement with a strong human rights based approach reflected in the operative 

provisions of the agreement and which covers all aspects of the agreement such as mitigation, 

adaptation, finance, technology transfer, transparency and capacity building, and specifically 

recognizes the rights of Indigenous Peoples; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI calls on the State Parties to adopt a goal of a 

temperature rise of no more than 1.5 degrees C of warming, with a review to ascertain if that should 

be further lowered to no more than I degree C of warming; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI calls upon the States Parties to recognize in 

the final agreement respect for and use, with free, prior, and informed consent and full participation, 

of Indigenous Peoples' traditional ecological knowledge; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any Conference Of the Parties (COP) decision at 

Paris should acknowledge the obligation to guarantee full and effective participation oflndigenous 

Peoples in all processes, programs and actions at all levels, including inter alia access to funding 

mechanisms, financing, capacity building, monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) and 

guaranteed and enforceable safeguards and all other evolving climate change-related mechanisms; 

and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any funds created through the United Nations for 

Indigenous People's for mitigation and adaptation to climate change be available on an equal basis 

for Indigenous Peoples from all regions, including North America; and 

Page2of3 
626 

NCAI2015 Annual Resolution SD-15-007 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions 

(INDCs) to be submitted prior to Paris as each Party's commitment to address climate change 

should include, along with commitments to reduce emissions, commitments on adaptation, finance, 

technology transfer, and capacity building as well as indicators on the extent to which Indigenous 

Peoples' rights and safeguards are respected, and non-carbon benefits, including cultural, spiritual 

and subsistence values are ensured; and 

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be the policy ofNCAI until it is 

withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution, 

CERTIFICATION 

The foregoing resolution was adopted by the General Assembly at the 2015 Annual Session of the 

National Congress of American Indians, held at the Town and Country Resort, San Diego, CA, 

October 18-23, 2015, with a quorum present. 

ATTEST: 

Page 3 of3 
627 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

PRESIDENT 

Brian Cllldooaby 

Swmom~s/!Tnbf, 

FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT 

R:~~ndyNoka 

f\Ja!TilgansariTnbe 

RECORDING SECRETARY 

Aaron Payment 

Sault Ste Mane Tnbe of Chippewa 

lndiansofMi<:hlf}an 

TREASURER 

W.RonAIIen 

James.'oMJ S'I<Ja!Jam Tnl>e 

REGIONAL VICE· 

PRESIDENTS 

Jenylnac 

Natl\fe Vtllage of Tanacross 

EASTERN OKLAHOMA 

JoeBYf(l 

CherokeeNallon 

GREAT PLAINS 

l.eanderMtOonald 

SpR71LakeNaiJon 

MIDWEST 

Rouer Rader 

PokBIJOfl Baf)j of PotawaltlmJ 

NORTHEAST 

L.anceGumbll 

Shmnecoc}( /ndJarJ Nal10n 

NoRTHWEST 

FaY«lSMrp 

Qumau/1/ndian NatiOn 

PACIFIC 

Ja10kPotl:er,Jr, 

Redding Rancherta 

ROCKY MoUNTAIN 

oarrtn Old Coyote 

CrowNa/1on 

SOUTHEAST 

l.anyTOW1"1$00d 

LumbeeTnbe 

SOUTHERN PLAINS 

Llat121 onnen Prairie Elanj of PolawatomF Nation 

SOUTHWEST 

Joe G.lrcJa 

0/JkilyQwingehP!leblo 

WESTERN 

BnJeelgnatlo 

Ulelnd1an TJJbe 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

Jacqueline P•ta 

-

NCAf HEADQUARTERS 

1516 P Street, N.W 

Washington, DC 20005 

202.466. ne1 202.466.n97 fax www neat org 

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS 

The National Congress of American Indians 

Resolution #SD-15-024 

TITLE: Support for the Tribal Climate Change Principles: Responding to Federal 

Policies and Actions to Address Climate Change document and its Swift 

Implementation by the Federal Government 

WHEREAS, we, the members of the National Congress of American Indians 

of the United States, invoking the divine blessing of the Creator upon our efforts and 

purposes, in order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the inherent sovereign 

rights of our Indian nations, rights secured under Indian treaties and agreements with 

the United States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are entitled under the 

laws and Constitution of the United States, to enlighten the public toward a better 

understanding of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and otherwise 

promote the health, safety and welfare of the Indian people, do hereby establish and 

submit the following resolution; and 

WHEREAS, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was 

established in I 944 and is the oldest and largest national organization of American 

Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments; and 

WHEREAS, Indigenous Peoples in the United States, including 567 federallyrecognized tribes, are facing immediate and significant impacts from climate change 

and a growing body of literature illustrates the unique issues facing Indigenous 

Peoples from climate change, including: the recently developed Primer on Climate 

Change and Indigenous Peoples; Guidelines for Considering Traditional Know/edges 

(fKs) in Climate Change Initiatives; and the special issue of the peer-reviewed journal 

Climatic Change. '"Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples in the United States: 

Impacts, Experiences and Actions;" and 

WHEREAS, the federal government is beginning to acknowledge the 

disproportionate threats of climate change to Indigenous Peoples through 

administrative and congressional reports such as the 3rd National Climate Assessment 

and the 2014 President's State, Local. and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate 

Preparedness and Resilience (Task Force); and 

WHEREAS, federal action must be taken to support the efforts of Indigenous 

Peoples to adapt to climate change impacts and to reduce their carbon footprints 

through a range of mitigation approaches, including renewable energy development 

and energy efficiency, and provide Indigenous Peoples access to the financial and 

technical resources that are required to assess the impacts of climate change on their 

cultures, air, land and water, economies, community health, and ways of life; and 

WHEREAS, adequate response to the threat of climate change requires action 

by tribal, federal, state, and local governments; and 
628 

NCAI 20I5 Annual Resolution SD-15-024 

WHEREAS, the federal government's treaty and trust responsibilities to protect Indian 

lands includes the duty to protect lands from the impacts of climate change, which requires that 

sufficient federal resources be equitably allocated to address climate change so Indigenous Peoples 

can engage effectively in adaptation and mitigation strategies that will help ensure the integrity of 

their cultures, homelands, infrastructures, and services; as well as enforce tribal treaty and reserved 

rights to both on- and off-reservation resources; and 

WHEREAS, the Task Force led an effort to reach out to Indigenous leaders across the 

country to solicit their recommendations on how the federal government can better support their 

nations and communities in preparing for the impacts of climate change and proposed further 

federal and state consultation and cooperation with Indigenous Peoples on all aspects of federal 

climate preparedness and resilience efforts; and 

WHEREAS, the Task Force recommendations focus on inclusion and participation of 

Indigenous Peoples in federal climate change programs, including access to data, programs and 

federal funds; education; and long-term planning for natural resources and ecosystem health; water 

safety and security; housing infrastructure; and food and energy security; and 

WHEREAS, many individual tribes, regional and national tribal organizations, and partner 

non-Native organizations recognized the need to develop a document identifYing tribal specific 

principles and, to varying degrees, engaged in drafting, reviewing, and providing input to develop 

the 'Tribal Climate Change Principles: Responding to Federal Policies and Actions to Address 

Climate Change," which sets forth eight principles to guide the federal government in the 

development and implementation of administrative and legislative actions related to Indigenous 

Peoples and climate change. 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Congress of American 

Indians (NCAI) supports the following eight principles of the Tribal Climate Change Principles: 

Responding to Federal Policies and Actions to Address Climate Change as a guiding policy for 

U.S. federal agencies and that all federal agencies actively engage NCAI and Indigenous Peoples in 

the United States in plans to implement these principles: 

Strengthen Tribal Sovereignty in the Climate Change Era 

I. Federally-recognized Tribes and other Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous commumttes 

must be partners with full and effective participation in assessing and addressing the 

problems of climate change at the local, regional, national, and international levels and must 

be accorded at least the status and rights recognized in the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of 

Indigenous Peoples and other international standards relevant to Indigenous Peoples. 

2. Tribes must have fair and equitable representation on all federal climate committees, 

working groups, and initiatives in which states, local governments, and other stakeholders 

are represented. 

3. The federal government should establish a high-level interagency Tribal government task 

force to examine and propose solutions to close gaps across the federal agencies' 

relationships and programs with Tribes, and to develop, recommend, and implement Tribalspecific solutions that enable the agencies to support and foster Tribal climate-resilient 

planning and investment. 

Page 2 of3 
629 

NCAI2015 Annual Resolution SD-15-024 

Support Tribes Facing Immediate Threats from Climate Change 

4. Indigenous Peoples must have direct, open access to funding, capacity-building, and other 

technical assistance, with their free, prior and informed consent, to address the immediate 

and long-term threats from climate change. 

Ensure Tribal Access to Climate Change Resources 

5. Tribes must have fair and equitable access to federal climate change programs. 

6. Tribes must be made eligible for existing and future federal natural resource funding 

programs for which states are eligible, but from which Tribes are currently, or might be, 

excluded. 

7. A fair and equitable set-aside of direct monies or allowances must be made available for 

distribution to Tribes through legislation, administrative actions, and existing and future 

federal natural resource funding programs. 

Traditional Knowledges and Climate Change 

8. Indigenous traditional know ledges, with the free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous 

Peoples, must be acknowledged, respected, and promoted in federal policies and programs 

related to climate change; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI urges the United States government agencies, 

taskforces, and their partner organizations to comply with and implement the November 5, 2009, 

Executive Memo, Executive Order 13175, and Secretarial Order 3289, and partner with American 

Indians as sovereign nations as co-decision makers all policy, regulations and laws related to 

climate change on or off each nation's respected reservations, ceded lands and usual and 

accustomed areas; and 

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be the policy of NCAI until it is 

withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution. 

CERTIFICATION 

The foregoing resolution was adopted by the General Assembly at the 2015 Annual Session of the 

National Congress of American Indians, held at the Town and Country Resort, San Diego, CA, 

October 18-23, 2015, with a quorum present. 

ATTEST: 

Page 3 of3 
630 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTE" 

PIHSI[)f.NT 

Jdfenonk..d 

o,.,.l:mawNatwn 

FIRST VlC:E-l'RES!DENl 

Ju.anaMaj~IDixo:~n 

P~~~m<>&uodofM:ssiJ;Jflfnd.an.< 

RECORDING SECRETARY 

F.dwardl"hom .. 

Cemra/Gmn<llo(11rngii&H.flida 

{ndwnFrJ(I~;o/Aimka 

TREASURER 

\\-.Ro11ABm 

./ami:wamSKla/!nmTr<be 

REGION~L VIC£-

PRESJDENTS 

ALASKA 

EASTERN OKLAHOMA 

S.JoeCrittend~'" 

C'h£rokeel>kmon 

GREATPLA!NS 

Ruboe.rtShepll.erd 

Sm~umWahp<'mn 

MtDWI:ST 

NORTl-IEAST 

LanceGymbs 

ShJ.Mf~Yrll!'ld•anNat!M 

NOR'!HWEST 

F .... nSh;irp 

Q~inauitfndmnNamm 

llonAnmtd 

.'><-YJII>>;;IIey&lNiiJ/J'mwfndiM\' 

ROCKY MOVNTAIN 

lvanPo.oey 

Shmh<>n~Tnhe 

SOUTHEAST 

LaM')·Townsead 

Lumf>eclrd'<: 

SOUTHERN PLAINS 

Ge<:trgeThunnan 

.U::andFoxNamm 

SOUTHWEST 

JO<i'Garda 

OIJJiuy(il<mRt'h 

WESTERN 

N.,dN<:trrl,,Jr 

nJ!,,~, 0 o.:fJram Natwtl 

EXECUT!Vf DIRECTOR 

Ja<:qlli'tilleJobnsooPata 

11mgrt 

SCAI HEADQUARTERS 

!5l6PStreet,N.W 

Washtngton,DC' 10005 

101.466.7767 

10H667797fax 

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS 

The National Congress of American Indians 

Resolution #REN-13-020 

TITLE: Adopting Guidance Principles to Address the Impacts of Climate 

Change 

WHEREAS, we, the members of the National Congress of American Indians 

of the United States, invoking the divine blessing of the Creator upon our efforts and 

purposes, in order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the inherent sovereign 

rights of our Indian nations, rights secured under Indian treaties and agreements with 

the United States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are entitled under the 

laws and Constitution of the United States, to enlighten the public toward a better 

understanding of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and otherwise 

promote the health, safety and welfare of the Indian people, do hereby establish and 

submit the following resolution; and 

WHEREAS, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was 

established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national organization of American 

Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments; and 

WHEREAS, American Indian and Alaska Natives are leaders in the nation on 

the protection of ecosystems and the environment since time immemorial and have a 

sacred responsibility to protect our resources and ways of life for generations to 

come; and 

WHEREAS, American Indian and Alaska Natives depend upon the health of 

their ecosystems and natural resources for social, economic, and cultural vitality; and 

WHEREAS, American Indians and Alaska Natives are place-based people and 

recognize that climate change is one of the most critical issues we face since it is 

threatening and can destroy in the future, indigenous ways of life that has been 

sustainable for thousands of years, 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that NCAI commits to 

collaborating with A TN! to develop an action plan which lays guiding principles and 

action steps a to address the impacts of climate change upon tribal governments, 

cultures, and lifeways; that will protect and advancing our treaty, inherent and 

indigenous rights, triballifeways and ecological knowledge; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the action plan, NCAI shall 

collaborate with A TN! to evaluate effectiveness of Executive Order 13175, and 

Secretarial Order 3289, and the United Nation Declaration of Indigenous Peoples 

(UNDRIP), in protecting and advancing the principles in the action plan; and 
631 

NCAI 2013 Midyear Resolution REN-13-0xx 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI collaborates with ATNI and calls upon the 

federal government to provides tribes equitable opportunities and funding to participate 

meaningfully in the development and implementation of federal climate change policies and 

programs; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI collaborates with ATNI and calls upon 

Congress and relevant federal agencies to explore and advocate for tribal eligibility for federal 

energy and natural resource management programs that provide funding to states and local 

governments but exclude tribal governments and intertribal consortia by law, regulation, or 

practice; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI collaborates with A TNI and commits to create 

a Tribal Climate Change Task Force, composed of tribal governments, intertribal organizations, and 

non-tribal partners to develop and implement the plan of action; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be the policy ofNCAI until it is 

withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution. 

CERTIFICATION 

The foregoing resolution was adopted by the General Assembly at the 2013 Midyear Session of the 

National Congress of American Indians, held at the Atlantis Casino from June 24 - 27, 2013 in 

Reno, Nevada with a quorum present. 

ATTEST: :.« 

Recording ~~--' Secretar 
632 

January 11, 2017 

Dear Senator: 

Since 1919, the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has been the leading voice of the 

American people in protecting and enhancing our National Park System. On behalf of our more than one 

million members and supporters nationwide, we urge you to reject the nomination of Oklahoma 

Attorney General Scott Pruitt for Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Mr. Pruitt 

has a track record of undermining the stewardship of America's national parks, extraordinary places that 

must have the clearest air and cleanest water in the country. 

The National Park Service (NPS) depends in part on the EPA to protect waterways and air in and around 

national parks for the millions of people that visit our parks each year. From the rivers and waterfalls of 

Yosemite to the skies over the Grand Canyon, protecting these natural resources and values is essential 

to preserve and enhance our national treasures for current and future generations. 

In order to protect our nation's parks, clean air, clean water, and laws that protect them, the EPA should 

not be led by someone who has a history of active opposition to the mission, science, and values the 

agency is tasked to uphold. From air quality in parks, to waterways that flow through parks, to the most 

pressing challenge our parks face today, climate change, Mr. Pruitt has a long record of litigation against 

and opposition to strong stewardship of these resources. 

When the Clean Air Act amendments were passed in 1977, Congress included a national goal of 

eliminating human-caused pollution that creates haze in our oldest national parks and wilderness areas, 

referred to as Class 1 areas. The Act mandates the restoration of natural air quality in these areas-this 

mandate is implemented through the Regional Haze Rule. In 2011, Mr. Pruitt suggested that the 

Oklahoma regional haze plan "does nothing to address air quality with respect to public health ... " 

despite medical opinion that concluded the plan would reduce deaths and provide a cost benefit of over 

a million dollars annually due to reduced instances of asthma. In 2013 in the Tenth Circuit of Appeals, 

Mr. Pruitt argued that EPA abused the discretion that Congress afforded states to make retrofit 

technology determinations (Oklahoma v. EPA 723 F.3d 1201 (2013)), but the Court affirmed the duty of 

the EPA to ensure state plans comply with the Clean Air Act. And in 2016, Mr. Pruitt supported strident 

opposition to the EPA amendments clarifying the Regional Haze Rule-to further enhance visibility and 

reduce air pollution in national parks-by signing a letter that also outlined plans for a legal challenge to 

the revisions once final. 

On clean water, Mr. Pruitt sued the EPA to overturn clean water safeguards for our nation's waters 

including those in and around national parks. After an incredibly lengthy and comprehensive process, 

the EPA published the Clean Water Rule, which protects national park waters by providing a clearer and 

more predictable science-based and legal framework for determining which waters are protected by the 

Clean Water Act (CWA). Mr. Pruitt has also joined efforts to impede limits on water pollution into the 

Chesapeake Bay, our nation's largest and most productive tidal estuary, with a 64,000 square mile 

watershed that includes almost 18 million people-two-thirds of whom get their drinking water from 

the watershed's rivers and streams. 
633 

In addition, Mr. Pruitt denies climate science, calling it "speculative," a perspective that would 

jeopardize our nation's most treasured places, compromising them for future generations. Our national 

parks are a testament to the reality of climate change. Air pollution obscures many scenic views that are 

the hallmark of a national park visit, and can transform outdoor recreation into a health hazard. Climate 

change greatly impacts wildlife habitat forcing species outside the boundaries of national parks designed 

to protect them. Changing ocean temperatures combined with human-caused pollution ravage coral 

reefs. Disappearing glaciers, shifting migration patterns for alpine birds, and coastal erosion of historic 

places are just some of the many effects of climate change. 

Outgoing NPS Director Jon Jarvis called climate change the biggest challenge facing NPS in its second 

century, stating "I think the science is very dear that humans are causing the planet to warm, and that is 

driving climate change." In fact, according to NPS, over the next 100 years sea level rise and storm 

vulnerability from climate change threatens to damage or destroy national park infrastructure and 

historic and cultural resources totaling more than $40 billion. What Jarvis and the NPS Climate Change 

Response Program confirm is not only consensus with overwhelming scientific opinion, but the scope of 

the challenge we face and the importance of sound science to help parks understand, manage, and 

adapt to climate change. 

The nomination of Mr. Pruitt comes at a critical time for addressing air and water pollution and climate 

change in our national parks. It is the duty of EPA to help safeguard park resources; national parks and 

the communities surrounding them deserve a leader of the EPA that is committed to protecting and 

enhancing them. NPCA is confident that Mr. Pruitt is not that nominee. 

For our parks and the people they support and represent, we urge you to oppose Mr. Pruitt's 

nomination. Please contact Ani Kame'enui at 202.360.6437 with questions regarding NPCA's position. 

Sincerely, 

Theresa Pierno 

President & CEO 
634 

Senator CARPER. Thank you so much. 

And again, to Mr. Pruitt, to your family, thank you all for joining 

us today. I see Cage, your son, right behind you, I could barely see 

Cage’s lips moving when you spoke. So I suspect he has a future 

in law, I am not sure. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PRUITT. We’ll see. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. Attorney General Pruitt, I do want to follow 

up; as you said, you were instructed by the Committee. I have a 

copy for the record of a January 9th letter which is the day that 

you were asked to submit the 52 answers to the questions. It’s a 

letter from me to the Ranking Member saying, please note the 

EPW Committee does not require nominees to respond to questions 

in advance of a hearing. And I know you’ll be responding to the 

written questions that will be submitted by tomorrow night. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, could I just add a short thing? 

That’s a conversation between you and the Chairman, I understand 

that. But again I would just reiterate, you have received a lot of 

questions, including some that have been unanswered that I had 

submitted 2 or 3 weeks ago. We need your responses. We need your 

responses. And I hope the Chairman will give you a reasonable 

amount of time to respond to those questions, because there will 

be quite a few of them. They are not going to be like multiple 

choice answers. They won’t be true and false. They will be more 

complete. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Additionally, I am going to introduce for the 

record an article from The Economist about mercury and the Mercury Rule. And it is interesting that it says rulemaking is being 

made to look more beneficial under Barack Obama, but it goes to 

say, ‘‘A casual listener would have assumed that all these benefits 

came from reduced mercury. In fact, reduced mercury explained 

none of the purported future reduction in deaths, heart attacks and 

asthma, and less than 0.01 percent of the monetary benefits. Instead, almost all the benefits came from concomitant reductions in 

a pollutant that was not the principal target of the Mercury Rule, 

namely, fine particles.’’ 

And I will submit that for the record as we look at the issues 

going into the future. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
635 

linitcd ~rates ~cnatc COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

WASHINGTON. DC 20&10-6175-

january 9, 2017 

Ranking Member Thomas R. Carper 

513 Hart Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Ranking M~~ I would like to reaffirm the process by which the Environment and Public Works 

Committee considers nominations. 

Under long-standing Committee practice, the Committee requires two sets of 

documents for a nominee: 

• From the nominee: a completed Committee Questionnaire (which is 

unchanged from the 114th Congress), 

• From the Office of Government Ethics: a copy of the nominee's completed 

Financial Disclosure Report, a copy of the letter from the nominee to his or 

her agency's ethics officer outlining how the nominee will meet his or her 

ethics responsibilities and a letter from the Office of Government Ethics to 

the Chairman stating that the nominee is in compliance with applicable laws 

and regulations regarding conflicts of interest. 

The Committee can report a nomination without a hearing. I do not plan to do so 

except with the concurrence of the Ranking Member and unless the Committee has 

received the documents itemized above. In addition, by unanimous consent the 

Committee can seek to be discharged from acting on a nomination. 

Please note that the EPW Committee does not require nominees to respond to 

questions in advance of a hearing. While in the past both Republican and Democrat 

members of the Committee have submitted questions to nominees before a 

nomination hearing. questions submitted by an individual member of the 

Committee are not formal requests from the Committee. 

The authority to schedule hearings rests within the sole discretion of the Chairman. 

I will follow the Committee rules and also will consult with the Ranking Member. 

There is no requirement for the Committee to formally receive a nomination before 

holding a hearing. For example, hearings in the Committee on the nominations for 

EPA Administrator at the beginning of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations 

all took place before the inauguration. In all three administrations, the EPA 

Administrator was in office before the end of January. 
636 

The timing of the transmittal of questions for the record and the deadline for responses 

also lies within the discretion of the Chairman. Please note that when the Committee 

considered the nomination of Lisa jackson in 2009, Chairman Boxer asked members to 

submit their questions for the record by close of business the same day as the nomination 

hearing. Chairman Boxer also required Ms. jackson to complete her responses within two 

days. 

For Attorney General Pruitt's nomination, we have received all the paperwork that the 

Committee requires from nominees. It is my hope that Committee members work with me 

to ensure that when the Committee considers his nomination, Attorney General Pruitt 

receives the same consideration as was given the nominees for EPA Administrator at the 

beginning of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations. It is particularly important to 

allow a new President to get his appointees in place to ensure a smooth transition and 

continued operation of government 

Sincerely, 
637 

The rule of more I The Economist 

Measuring the Impact of regulation 

The rule of more 

Rule-making is being made to look more beneficial under Barack Obama 

Feb 18th 20121 Washington, de 

IN DECEMBER Barack Obama trumpeted a 

new standard for mercmy emissions from 

power plants, The rule, he boasted, would 

prevent thousands of premature deaths, heart 

attacks and asthma roses. The Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) reckoned these 

benefits were worth up to $90 billion a year, 

fur above their $to billion-a-year cost. Mr 

Page I of4 

Ohama took a swipe at past administrations for not implementing this "common-sense, cost· 

effective standard". 

A casual listener would have assumed that all these benefits came from reduced mercury. In 

fact, reduced mercury explained none of the purported future reduction in deaths, heart 

attacks and asthma, and less than 0.01% of the monetary benefits. In.'ltead, almost all the 

http://\\ww.economist.com/node/2154 7772/print 1/26/2017 
638 

The rule of more i The Economist Page 2 of4 

benefits came from concomitant reductions in a pollutant that was not the principal target of 

the rule; namely, fine particles. 

The minutiae of how regulators calculate benefits may seem arcane, but matters a lot. When 

businesses complain that Mr Obama has burdened them with costly new rules, his advisers 

respond that those costs are more than justified by even higher benefits. His Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which vets the red tape spewing out ofthe 

federal apparatus, reckons the "net benefit" of the rules passed in 2009-10 is greater than in 

the first two years of the administrstions of either George Bush junior or Bill Clinton. 

But those calculations have been criticised for resting on assumptions that yield higher 

benefits and lower costs. One of these assumptions is the generous use of ancillary benefits, 

or "co-benefits", such as reductions in fine particles as a result of a rule targeting mercury. 

Mr Obama's advisers note that co-benefits have long been included in regulatory cost-benefit 

analysis. The logic is sound. For instance, someone may cycle to work principally to save 

money on fuel, parking or bus fares, but also to get more exercise. Both sorts of benefit 

should be counted. 

The controversy arises from the overwhelming 

role that co-benefits play in assessing Mr 

Obama's rule-making. Fully two-thirds of the 

benefits of economicelly significant final rules 

reviewed by OIRA in 2010 were thanks to 

reductions in fine particles brought about by 

regulations that were actually aimed at 

something else, according to Susan Dudley of 

George Washington University, who served in 

OIRA under George Bush (see chart). That is 

double the slmre of co-benefits reported in Mr 

Bush's last year in office in 2008. 

If reducing fine particles is so beneficial, it 

would surely be more transparent and efficient 

to target them directly. As it happens, federal 

standards for fine-particle concentrations already exist, But the EPA routinely claims 

additional benefits from reducing those concentrations well below levels the current law 

considers safe. That is dubious: a lack of data makes it much harder to know the effects of 

such low concentrations. 

http:/lwww.economist.corn!node!215477721print 1/26/2017 
639 

The rule of more I The Economist Page 3 of4 

Another criticism of the Obama administration's approach is its heavy reliance on •private 

benefits•. Economists typically justify regulation when private market participants, such as 

buyers and sellers of electricity, generate costs-such as pollution-that the rest of society has 

to bear. But fuel and energy-efficiency regulations are now being justified not by such social 

benefits, but by private benefits like reduced spending on fuel and electricity. 

Private benefits have long been used in cost-benefit analysis but Ms Dudley's data show that, 

like e~rbenefits, their importance has grown dramatically under Mr Obama. Ted Gayer of the 

Brookings Institution notes that private benefits such as reduced fuel consumption and 

shorter refuelling times account fur 90% of the $388 billion in lifetime benefits claimed for 

last year's new fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks. They also account for 92% 

and 70% of the benefits of new energy-efficiency standards for washing machine& and 

refrigerators respectively. 

The values placed on such private benefits are highly suspect. If consumers were really better 

off with more efficient cars or appliances, they would buy them without a prod from 

government. The fact that they don't means they put little value on money saved in the 

future, or simply prefer other features more. Mr Obama's OIRA notes that a growing body of 

research argues that consumers don't always make rational choices; Mr Gayer counters that 

regulators do not make appropriate use of that research in their calculations. 

Under Mr Obama, rule-makers' assumptions not only enhance the benefits of rules but also 

reduce the costs. John Graham of Indiana University, who ran OIRA under Mr Bush, cites 

the new fuel-economy standards as an example. They assume that electric cars have no 

carbon emissions, although the electricity they use probably came from coal. They also 

assume less of a "rebound effect" -the tendency of people to drive more when their cars get 

better mileage-than was the case under Mr Bush. 

Mr Bush's administration was sometimes accused of the opposite bias: understating benefits 

and overstating costs. At one point his EPA considered assigning a lower value to red~cing 

the risk of death for elderly people since they had fewer years left to live; it eventually backed 

dawn. Mr Obama's EPA has considered raising the value of cutting the risk of death by 

cancer on the ground that it is a more horrifying way to die than others. 

More consistent cost-benefit analysis would reduce such controversies. Michael Greenstone 

of the Hamilton Project, a liberal-leaning research group, thinks that could be done through 

the creation of a non-partisan congressional oversight body using the best evidence available 

to vet regulations, much as the Congressional Budget Office vets fiscal policy. It would also 

re-evaluate old regulations to see if the original analysis behind them wa& still valid. Rnlehttp;/lwww.economist.com/node/21547772/print l/26/2017 
640 

The mle of more I The Economist Page 4 of4 

making would still require judgment, but it would be less subject to the whims of the people 

in power. 

This article appeared in the Finance and economics section of the print edition 

http://www.economisLcom/node/21547772/print 112612017 
641 

Senator BARRASSO. I want to thank all the members of the Committee for your patience. I certainly want to thank the nominee for 

his time and his testimony today. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:55 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Additional information follows:] 
642 

tinittd ~tarts ~rnatt 

The llonorable Scott Pruitt 

Attorney General of Oklahoma 

Oklahoma Attorney General's Office 

313 NE 21'1 Street 

Oklahoma City, OK 731 05 

Dear Mr. Pruitt. 

WASHINGTON. DC 20610 

December 27,2016 

As members of the Senate Environment IUid Public Works Committee. we look forward to 

discussing with you your nomination to be Administrator of the Environmental Protcclion 

Agency (EI'A). Since its inception in 1970. EI'A ha.~ played an integral role in ft:deral and state 

ellorts to protecl public heahh and ensure we all have clean air to breathe and water to drink. It 

has long been the expectation of this Committee that the EPA Administrator put the public's 

interest first and commit to running the agency in a fully transparent manner. 

We have been troubled that as Attorney General of Oklahoma you used. nearly verbatim, 

industry talking points in official correspondence your office sent to EPA concerning EPA's 

estimation of methane pollution in your state. 'I banks to news reporting prior to your 

nomination. we now know aboul your close relationship with Devon Energy and that you appear 

to have been willing to accept its representations about its business practices without 

independent contirmation or analysis. That reporting. based on documents produced by your 

office pursuant to Frt:cdom of Information Act requests, also documented how you and members 

of your staff have worked closely with fossil fuel industry lobbyists to craft positions taken by 

your office. What that conduct says about your ability to lead EPA in a manner that is not 

beholden to special or secrel interests is a subject that we expect will receive a full airing during 

your confirmation hearing. 

Your relationship with the Rule of Law Defense Fand (the Fund) has received less attention but 

is nu less troubling. According to its website, the Fund is a .. public policy organiz11tion lor issues 

relevant to the nation's Republican attorneys general. .. The Fund's annual IRS 990 repons list 

you as a member of its board and news reporting indicates you were instrumental in efforts to 

organize the Fund and you have participated in retreats organized by the fund as recently as this 

year. Its organization under section 50l(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code means the Fund 

need not disclose the identities ofits donors. though Freedom Partners. which fund.'l initiatives 

supported by the Koch brothers, has given the l'und at least $175,000 since 2014. The Fund's 

activities. and your relationship to it, also require a full examination during your confirmation 

process. 

Hctorc the Senate votes to confirm you to run EPA, it is important that you provide a full 

disclosure of your relationship with the energy industry so we can detcnnine how that will 

influence your ability to run the agency. Accordingly. we request you provide the following 

information before your confirmation hearing before the Committee: 
643 

• A written expllllllltion of the role you or any person under your supervision has played in 

the establishment and operation of the Fund; 

• A list of all donors who have contributed to the Fund since its inception. total donated. 

and their afliliations; 

• A list of all requests you have made for funding and what was given and from whom in 

response; 

• A list of all expenditures of over $1.000 made by the Fund since its inception: 

• Details of any Fund expenditures over $100 that have benefited you or any person under 

your supervision. including travel; 

• All communications, including e-mails. between you and the Fund and bet ween you and 

any individuals related to the establishment of the Fund or the conduct of the Fund's 

activities: 

• A list of all meetings and fundraisers organized by or sponsored in whole or in part by the 

Fund that you or any person under your supervision attended. including the dates. 

locations, agendas and allendees; and 

• A list of all federal and state legislation or regulations the Fund has taken a position on. 

Fund-organized legal briefs and letters to federal lawmakers, and all actions you have 

taken with respect to those matters. 

The conlinnation proc.:ei!S, starting with your reb'jl(lnses to Committee questions before your 

hearing. is an opportunity lin you to dispel the notion that the advocacy you have undertaken on 

environmental issues as Attorney General of Oklahoma has been directed by and for the benefit 

of the energy industry. Accordingly, we look forward to your timely response to this request. 

Sincerely. 

~ United States Senator 

.J£J,.;~ United States Senator 

~~+c-- sernafdllders 

United States Senator 

c"Jw.j 

Edward J. Markey (\~ ()" ~-• • ..::;;:;- • --(f' 

United States Senator 

d"!;rl}~ United States Senator 

~O.,b, ;Din L. Cardin 

United States Senator 
644 

Science and the Public Interest 

An Open Letter to President-Elect Trump and the llSth Congress 

Scientific knowledge has played a critical role in making the United States a powerful and prosperous nation 

and improving the health and well-being of Americans and people around the world. From disease outbreaks 

to climate change to national security to technology innovation, people benefit when our nation's policies are 

informed by science unfettered by inappropriate political or corporate influence. 

To build on this legacy and extend the benefits of science to all people, including Americans who have been left 

behind, the federal government must support and rely on science as a key input for crafting public policy. Po1icy 

makers and the public alike require access to high-quality scientific information to serve the public interest. There 

are several actions Congress and the Trump administration shou)d take to strengthen the role that science plays in 

policy making. 

First, creating a strong and open culture of science begins at the top. Federal agencies should be led by officials 

with demonstrated track records of respecting science as a critical component of decision making. Further, 

recoJ:,.rnizing that diversity makes science stronger, administration officials should welcome and encourage all 

scientists regardless of religious background, race, gender, or sexual orientation. 

Second, Congress and the Trump administration should ensure our nation's bedrock public health and 

environmental laws-such as the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act-retain a strong scientific 

foundation, and that agencies are able to freely co1lect and draw upon scientific data to effectively carry out 

statutory responsibilities established by these laws. They should also safeguard the independence of those outside 

the government who provide scientific advice. 

Third, Congress and the Trump administration should adhere to high standards of scientific integrity and 

independence in responding to current and emerging public health and environmental threats. Decision makers 

and the public need to know what the best-available scientific evidence is, not what vested interests might wish 

it to be. Federally funded scientists must be able to develop and share their findings free from censorship or 

manipulation based on politics or ideology. These scientists should, without fear of reprisal or retaliation, have the 

freedom and responsibility to: 

conduct their work without political or private-sector interference; 

candidly communicate their findings to Congress, the public, and their scientific peers; 

publish their work and participate meaningfully in the scientific community; 

disclose misrepresentation, censorship, and other abuses of science; and 

ensure that scientific and technical information coming from the government is accurate. 

Finally, Congress and the Trump administration should provide adequate resources to enable scientists to 

conduct research in the public interest and effectively and transparently carry out their agencies' missions. 

The consequences are real: without this investment, chi1dren wiH be more vulnerable to lead poisoning, more 

people will be exposed to unsafe drugs and medical devices, and we will be less prepared to limit the impacts of 

increasing extreme weather and rising seas. 

These steps are necessary to create a thriving scientific enterprise that will strengthen our democracy and 

bring the full fruits of science to all Americans and the world. The scientific community is fully prepared to 

constructively engage with and closely monitor the actions of the Trump administration and Congress. We 

will continue to champion efforts that strengthen the role of science in policy making and stand ready to hold 

accountable any who might seek to undermine it. 
645 

*Nobel Prize 

tNational Medal of Science 

Andreas Acrivost 

Stanford University 

PeterAgre* 

Johns Hopkins University 

Jeffrey H. Altschul 

Statistical Research, Inc. 

Kenneth J. Arrow*t 

Stanford University 

Francisco J. Ayala* 

University of California, Irvine 

David Baltimoret 

California Institute of Technology 

Mark A. Barteau 

University of Michigan 

Georges C. Benjamin 

American Public Health Association 

R. Stephen Berry 

University of Chicago 

Lewis M. Branscomb 

University of California, San Diego 

Ken Caldeira 

Carnegie Institution for Science 

MarkA.Cane 

Columbia University 

F. Stuart Chapin III 

University of Alaska 

Eric Chivian* 

Harvard Medical School 

Robert W. Corell 

Global Science Associates 

Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only. 

Signatories 

Gretchen C. Daily 

Stanford University 

Ruth DeFries 

Columbia University 

Johann Deisenhofer* 

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center 

Rodolfo Dirzo 

Stanford University 

Philip R. Duffy 

Woods Hole Research Center 

Paul R. Ehrlich 

Stanford University 

Kerry Emanuel 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

James A. Estes 

University of California, Santa Cruz 

Christopher B. Field 

Stanford University 

Edmond H. Fischer* 

University of Washington 

Charles A. Francis 

University of Nebraska-Lincoln 

Richard Garwint 

IBM Fellow Emeritus 

Peter Gent 

National Center for Atmospheric Research 

Sheldon Glashow* 

Boston University 

Peter H. Gleick 

Pacific Institute 
646 

Kurt Gottfried 

Cornell University 

Carol W. Greider* 

Johns Hopkins University 

Roger Guillemin* 

The Salk Institute for Biological Studies 

James E. Hansen 

Columbia University 

James S. Harris 

Stanford University 

Oliver Hart* 

Harvard University 

Geoffrey M. Heal 

Columbia University 

Dudley R. Herschbach* 

TexasA&M University 

Roald Hoffmann*t 

Cornell University 

Alice S. Huang 

California Institute ofTechnology 

Kathy Jacobs 

University of Arizona 

Daniel H. Janzen 

University of Pennsylvania 

Daniel M. Kammen 

University of California, Berkeley 

Anne R. Kapuscinski 

Dartmouth College 

David Keith 

Harvard University 

Kenneth H. Keller 

John Hopkins University 

Wolfgang Ketterle* 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only. 

Daniel Kleppnert 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

Lawrence M. Krauss 

Arizona State University 

Neal F. Lane 

Rice University 

Anthony Leggett* 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

Anders Levermann 

Columbia University 

Simon A. Levint 

Princeton University 

NtichaeiC.MacCracken 

Climate Institute 

Eric S. Maskin* 

Harvard University 

James J. McCarthy 

Harvard University 

Bonnie McCay 

Rutgers University 

Jerry M. Melillo 

Marine Biological Laboratory 

James Merchant 

University of Iowa 

Matthew S. Meselson 

Harvard University 

William E. Moerner* 

Stanford University 

Mario J. Molina* 

University of California, San Diego 

William Moomaw 

Tufts University 

Harold A. Mooney 

Stanford University 
647 

K.M. Venkat Narayan 

Emory University 

Michael Oppenheimer 

Princeton University 

Jonathan Overpeck 

University of Arizona 

Stephen Pacala 

Princeton University 

C. Kumar Patelt 

University of California, Los Angeles 

Stuart L. Pimm 

Duke University 

Thomas Dean Pollard 

Yale University 

G. Carleton Ray 

University of Virginia 

John P. Reganold 

Washington State University 

Linda Rosenstock 

University of California, Los Angeles 

Liane B. Russell 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

Benjamin Santer 

Member, National Academy of Sciences 

Randy Schekman* 

University of California, Berkeley 

William H. Schlesinger 

Duke University 

Matt Schwartz 

Harvard University 

Robert J. Shiller* 

Yale University 

Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only. 

Charles Sing 

University of Michigan 

Susan Solomont 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

Thomas A. Steitz* 

Yale University 

Karel Svoboda 

Howard Hughes Medical Institute 

MaxTegmark 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

Kevin E. Trenberth 

National Center for Atmospheric Research 

Harold E. Varmus*t 

Weill Cornell Medical College 

Steven Weinburg*t 

University of Texas at Austin 

ZenaWerb 

University of California, San Francisco 

Eric F. Wieschaus* 

Princeton University 

Frank Wtlczek* 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

Robert Woodrow Wilson 

Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics 

Steven C. Wofsy 

Han;ard University 

George M. Woodwell 

Woods Hole Research Center 

Melinda A. Zeder 

Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History 
648 

4 

~ Second Nature 

January 17, 2017 

Dear President-elect Trump and Members of the United States Congress, 

We, the undersigned leaders of higher education institutions throughout the United States, 

recognize our academic and ethical responsibilities to current and future generations to take 

aggressive climate action; to reduce our sector's carbon pollution, to support 

interdisciplinary climate education, and to continue research that expands our understanding 

of rapidly changing earth systems. We are committed to developing and deploying innovative 

climate solutions that provide a prosperous future for all Americans. 

We join our colleagues in the business and investment communities in supporting the 

science-based targets outlined in the Paris Climate Agreement. In fact many of our 

institutions have voluntarily set even more aggressive carbon reduction goals to lead our 

sector forward and to demonstrate what is possible for others. 

Therefore, we ask that you support the following: 

1. Participation in the Paris Agreement, with the resulting national carbon reduction and 

clean energy targets, to protect the health of our current communities and our future 

generations. 

2. Research in our academic institutions and in federal agencies to ensure that our 

national climate, energy, and security policies are based on leading scientific and 

technical knowledge. 

3 Investments in the low carbon economy as part of a resilient infrastructure to ensure 

the country can adapt to changing climate hazards. These investments will also help 

grow American jobs and businesses. 

The upcoming transition of federal leadership presents a unique opportunity to address 

head-on the challenges of climate change by accelerating the new energy economy and 

creating strong, resilient communities. This is particularly important for those in our 

communities most vulnerable to climate change. Your support for these three areas is a 

18 Tremont Street, STE 930, Boston. MA 02108 617.722 0036 info@secondnature org 
649 

critical investment in the future of the miUions of students we serve. We will continue to 

prepare graduates for the workforce as well as lead in world-class research and innovation in 

order to secure a healthier and more prosperous future for all. 

We stand ready to assist your incoming Administration and congressional representatives to 

embrace this opportunity for the nation to meet these unprecedented global challenges. 

Respectfully, 

Raymond Crossman, President, Adler University 

Elizabeth Kiss, President, Agnes Scott College 

Don Bantz, President, Alaska Pacific University 

James Mullen, President, Allegheny College 

Karan Powell, President, American Public University System 

Sara Wenger Shenk, President. Anabaptist Mennonite Biblical Seminary 

Thomas Manley, President, Antioch College (OH) 

William Groves. Interim Chancellor, Antioch University 

Melinda Treadwell, Provost, Antioch University New England 

Michael Crow, President Arizona State University 

Paul Pribbenow, President, Augsburg College 

Leon Botstein, President Bard College 

Debora Spar, President, Barnard College 

Laura Coleman, President, Bay de Noc Community College 

Jill Wakefield, Interim President Bellevue College 

Mariko Silver, President, Bennington College 

Terrence Leas, President, Big Bend Community College 

Glen LeRoy, President, Boston Architectural College 

Mickey Burnim, President Bowie State University 

Christina Paxson, President, Brown University 

John Bravman, President, Bucknell University 

Pam Eddinger, President, Bunker Hill Community College 

Christopher Kimball, President, California Lutheran University 

Timothy White, Chancellor, California State University System 

Horace Mitchell, President, California State University-Bakersfield 

Gayle Hutchinson, President, California State University-Chico 

Jane Conoley, President, California State University- Long Beach 

18 Tremont Street, STE 930, Boston, MA 02108 617.722 0036 info@secondnature .org 
650 

Eduardo Ochoa, President, California State University-Monterey Bay 

Dianne Harrison, President, California State University-Northridge 

Robert Nelsen, President, California State University-Sacramento 

Gregory Smith, President, Central Community College 

James Gaudino, President, Central Washington University 

Robert Mohrbacher, President, Centralia College 

Donald Laackman, President, Champlain College 

William Guerriero, Interim President Chandler-Gilbert Community College 

David Finegold. President Chatham University 

David Angel, President, Clark University 

Anthony Collins, President Clarkson University 

Ronald Berkman, President, Cleveland State University 

David Mclnally, President Coe College 

Susan Stuebner, President Colby-Sawyer College 

Brian Casey, President, Colgate University 

David Coon, President/Superintendent College of Marin 

Diana Morris, President College of Menominee Nation 

Darron Collins, President, College of the Atlantic 

Richard Cummins, President Columbia Basin College 

Joyce Judy, President Community College of Vermont 

Brian Murphy, President De Anza College 

Jean Goodnow, President Delta College 

Neil Weissman, Acting President Dickinson College 

Earl Martin, President Drake University 

MaryAnn Baenninger, President, Drew University 

Elsa Nunez, President Eastern Connecticut State University 

Lee Snyder, President Eastern Mennonite University 

Leo Lambert President Elon University 

Lee Pelton. President, Emerson College 

Jake Schrum, President Emory & Henry College 

Joyce Brown, President Fashion Institute of Technology (SUNY) 

James Anderson, Chancellor, Fayetteville State University 

Anne Prisco, President Felician University 

Frank Sims, Interim President, Fisk University 

Wilson G. Bradshaw, President, Florida Gulf Coast University 

Thuy Nguyen, President, Foothill College 

18 Tremont Street, STE 930, Boston, MA 02108 617 722 0036 mfo@secondnatu re.org 
651 

Judy Miner, Chancellor, Foothill-De Anza Community College District System 

Dene Thomas, President, Fort Lewis College 

Javier Cevallos, President, Framingham State University 

Daniel Porterfield, President, Franklin & Marshall College 

Ronald Nowaczyk, President, Frostburg State University 

Elizabeth Davis, President, Furman University 

Roberta Cordano, President, Gallaudet University 

Joseph Marbach, President, Georgian Court University 

Thayne McCulloh, President, Gonzaga University 

James Brenneman, President, Goshen College 

Jose A. Bowen, President, Goucher College 

Elaine Maimon, President, Governors State University 

Jim Minkler, President Grays Harbor College 

Robert Allen, President, Green Mountain College 

Maria Klawe, President, Harvey Mudd College 

Kimberly Benston, President, Haverford College 

William Maki, President. Hibbing Community College 

Mark Gearan, President. Hobart and William Smith Colleges 

Lisa Rossbacher, President, Humboldt State University 

Larry Dietz, President, Illinois State University 

William Lowe, Chancellor, Indiana University Northwest 

James DiLiberto, President, Island Drafting and Technical Institute 

Jorge Gonzalez, President, Kalamazoo College 

Marilyn Schlack, President. Kalamazoo Valley Community College 

Alison Byerly, President. Lafayette College 

Thomas Pleger, President Lake Superior State University 

Linda Lujan, President, Lamar Community College 

Mary Spilde, President Lane Community College 

Lewis Thayne, President, Lebanon Valley College 

Thomas Hellie, President Linfield College 

Jo Ann Rooney, President, Loyola University Chicago 

Brian Linnane, President, Loyola University Maryland 

Kenneth Garren, President, Lynchburg College 

Brian Rosenberg, President Maca lester College 

Sasan Poureetezadi, Interim President, Mesa Community College 

John Anderson, President, Millersville University of Pennsylvania 

18 Tremont Street, STE 930, Boston, MA 02108 617.722.0036 info @second nature .org 

eGe. CLIMATE · COIOI.,TMt•T 

.. ,,._,,,.~···l 
652 

Elizabeth Hillman, President, Mills College 

Vicki Martin, President, Milwaukee Area Technical College 

Sharon Pierce, President, Minneapolis Community and Technical College 

Sylvia Jenkins, President. Moraine Valley Community College 

Debra Derr, President, Mt. Hood Community College 

Charles Lief, President, Naropa University 

Sue Henderson, President. New Jersey City University 

Andrew Hamilton, President. New York University 

Harold Martin, Sr., Chancellor, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State 

University 

Johnson Akinleye, Acting Chancellor, North Carolina Central University 

Warren Brown, President, North Seattle College 

Patricia Gentile, President. North Shore Community College 

Michael Miller, President, Northland College 

John Jasinski, President. Northwest Missouri State University 

Joianne Smith, President. Oakton Community College 

Marvin Krislov, President Oberlin College 

Jonathan Veitch, President, Occidental College 

Roderick McDavis, President, Ohio University 

Edward Ray, President, Oregon State University 

Thomas Krise, President. Pacific Lutheran University 

Paul Dale, President. Paradise Valley Community College 

Cathy Dove, President, Paul Smith's College 

Melvin Oliver, President Pitzer College 

David Oxtoby, President. Pomona College 

Mark Mitsui, President, Portland Community College 

Wim Wiewel, President, Portland State University 

John Flicker, President. Prescott College 

Carlee Drummer, President, Quinebaug Valley Community College 

Bradley Bateman, President, Randolph College 

Michael McDonough, President, Raritan Valley Community College 

William Destler, President, Rochester Institute of Technology 

Donald Farish, President Roger Williams University 

Nancy Cantor, Chancellor, Rutgers the State University of New Jersey Newark 

Campus 

James Dlugos, President Saint Joseph's College of Maine 

18 Tremont Street. STE 930, Boston, MA 02108 617 722 0036 info @secondnature.org 

e . 

. . e . 

. 
653 

Patricia Meservey, President. Salem State University 

Kathryn Jeffery, Superintendent/President, Santa Monica College 

Elissa Tenny, President. School of the Art Institute of Chicago 

Jan Gehler, President, Scottsdale Community College 

Sheila Edwards Lange, President. Seattle Central College 

Shouan Pan, Chancellor, Seattle Colleges 

Susan Hencking, President. Shimer College 

Cheryl Roberts, President. Shoreline Community College 

Edward Coughlin, President. Siena College 

Tom Keegan, President. Skagit Valley College 

Philip Glotzbach, President. Skidmore College 

Kathleen McCartney, President. Smith College 

Gary Oertli, President, South Seattle College 

Joe Bertolino, President. Southern Connecticut State University 

Mary-Beth Cooper, President, Springfield College 

Nancy Zimpher, Chancellor, State University of New York (SUNY) 

James Stellar, Interim President. State University of New York at Albany 

Harvey Stenger, President, State University of New York at Binghamton 

Satish Tripathi, President. State University of New York at Buffalo 

Virginia Horvath. President. State University of New York at Fredonia 

Donald Christian, President. State University of New York at New Paltz 

Samuel Stanley, President, State University of New York at Stony Brook 

Heidi Macpherson, President, State University of New York College at Brockport 

Katherine Conway-Turner, President, State University of New York College at Buffalo 

Erik Bitterbaum, President. State University of New York College at Cortland 

Denise Battles, President. State University of New York College at Geneseo 

Nancy Kleniewski, President, State University of New York College at Oneonta 

Deborah Stanley, President. State University of New York College at Oswego 

John Ettling, President. State University of New York College at Plattsburgh 

Kristin Esterberg, President. State University of New York College at Potsdam 

Quentin Wheeler, President. State University of New York College of Environmental 

Science and Forestry 

Merodie Hancock, President, State University of New York Empire State College 

Harvey Kesselman, President. Stockton University 

Cliff Wood, President, SUNY Rockland Community College 

Valerie Smith, President, Swarthmore College 

18 Tremont Street. STE 930, Boston, MA 02108 617.722.0036 mfo@ secondnatu re .org 
654 

Barbara Gitenstein. President, The College of New Jersey 

George Bridges. President. The Evergreen State College 

Steven Knapp. President, The George Washington University 

Kim Schatzel, President. Towson University 

Karin Hilgersom. President. Truckee Meadows Community College 

Anthony Monaco. President. Tufts University 

Stephen Ainlay. President. Union College 

Melik Khoury, President, Unity College 

Ann Hart, President. University of Arizona 

Nicholas Dirks, Chancellor. University of California, Berkeley 

Ralph Hexter. Acting Chancellor, University of California, Davis 

Howard Gillman. Chancellor. University of California, Irvine 

Gene Block, Chancellor. University of California. Los Angeles 

Dorothy Leland, Chancellor. University of California. Merced 

Kim Wilcox. Chancellor. University of California. Riverside 

Pradeep Khosla. Chancellor. University of California. San Diego 

Sam Hawgood. Chancellor. University of California, San Francisco 

Henry Yang. Chancellor. University of California. Santa Barbara 

George Blumenthal. Chancellor. University of California. Santa Cruz 

Charles Ambrose. President. University of Central Missouri 

Susan Herbst. President. University of Connecticut 

Eric Spina. President. University of Dayton 

Helen Cox. Chancellor. University of Hawai'i Kaua'i Community College 

David Lassner. President. University of Hawai'i System 

Michael Amiridis. Chancellor, University of Illinois at Chicago 

Robert Jones, Chancellor, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

Timothy Killeen. President. University of Illinois System 

Bruce Harreld. President. University of Iowa 

Kathryn Foster. President. University of Maine at Farmington 

Freeman Hrabowski Ill. President. University of Maryland Baltimore County 

Donald Boesch. President. University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science 

Kumble Subbaswamy. Chancellor. University of Massachusetts Amherst 

Fred Wood. Chancellor, University of Minnesota-Crookston 

Lendley Black. Chancellor. University of Minnesota-Duluth 

Jacqueline Johnson. Chancellor. University of Minnesota-Morris 

Danielle Ripich. President. University of New England 

18 Tremont Street. STE 930. Boston. MA 02108 617 722.0036 info@ second nature. org 
655 

Mark Huddleston, President. University of New Hampshire 

Philip Dubois, Chancellor, University of North Carolina at Charlotte 

Jim Wohlpart, Interim President University of Northern Iowa 

lsiaah Crawford, President. University of Puget Sound 

Ralph Kuncl, President University of Redlands 

David Dooley, President. University of Rhode Island 

Sophia Wisniewska, President, University of South Florida St. Petersburg 

Rodney Smith, President University of The Bahamas 

Mark Pagano, Chancellor, University of Washington, Tacoma 

James Schmidt Chancellor, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire 

Dean Van Galen, Chancellor, University of Wisconsin-River Falls 

Bernie Patterson, Chancellor, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point 

Robert Caret Chancellor, University System of Maryland 

Marc Mihaly, President and Dean, Vermont Law School 

Peter Donohue, President Villanova University 

Scott Miller, President, Virginia Wesleyan College 

Rose Bellanca, President Washtenaw Community College 

Jonathan Gibralter, President, Wells College 

Jim Richardson, President Wenatchee Valley College 

Michael Roth, President Wesleyan University 

John Dunn, President, Western Michigan University 

Lee Rasch, President, Western Technical College 

Sabah Randhawa, President Western Washington University 

Ramon Torrechila, President, Westfield State University 

Kathi Hiyane-Brown, President, Whatcom Community College 

Dennis Hanna, President, Wheaton College (MA} 

David Chard, President Wheelock College 

Kathleen Murray, President, Whitman College 

Stephen Thorsett. President Willamette University 

Adam Falk, President. Williams College 

18 Tremont Street STE 930, Boston, MA 02108 617722.0036 info@lsecondnatu re.org 
656 

Senator John Boelman 

141 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Boozman, 

As President of The Poultry Federation, a tri-state trade association that represents the poultry 

industry in Arkansas, Oklahoma and Missouri, I am very familiar with the Arkansas-Oklahoma 

lawsuit filed by former attorney general Drew Edmonson. I take serious issue with the most 

recent New York Times article. 

We want you to know that some of the facts in The New York Times' recent expose on Scott 

Pruitt and the poultry industry were wrong. 

The Times reported that Mr. Pruitt negotiated a deal with Arkansas "and the poultry 

companies" to conduct an environmental study, rather than push a judge for a decision on a 

lawsuit against the companies. The truth is the agreement had nothing to do with the lawsuit 

and the poultry companies were not part of it. 

The Times also incorrectly reported that Mr. Pruitt allowed the expiration of a 2003 agreement 

" ... to reduce poultry waste pollution." The deal actually involved northwest Arkansas dties, not 

the poultry industry. It wasn't renewed because the cities had already made the wastewater 

improvements and were operating within permit limits. 

The reporters also failed to explain to readers that chicken manure is a valuable fertilizer and its 

use on farm land is regulated by state rules designed to protect waterways. In addition, 

independent farmers- not the poultry companies- own and manage the manure. 

The editorial from the Wall Street Journal more accurately describes General Pruitt's 

philosophy and efforts to protect the environment. 

Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information about this 

matter. 

Sincerely, 
657 

WSJ Editorial: Scott Pruitt's Chick-fii-EPA 

Scott Pruitt's Chick-til-EPA 

Allow us to clean up the facts about liberal tales of chicken waste. 

liberals are waxing apocalyptic to stop Scott Pruitt's confirmation to run the Environmental Protection 

Agency. But what they really fear is a restoration of the cooperative federalism he's championed as 

Oklahoma Attorney General. 

Democrats will have sound bites ready for Mr. Pruitt's Senate hearing Wednesday, and one talking point 

will be a report this weekend by the liberal Environmental Working Group that Mr. Pruitt dropped a 

pollution lawsuit against 13 poultry companies after accepting $40,000 in campaign contributions from 

the industry. This is as unbelievable as it sounds. 

In 2005 Mr. Pruitt's Democratic predecessor Drew Edmonson charged out-of-state poultry producers 

with dumping more than 300,000 pounds of manure into the Illinois River Basin each year, causing algae 

blooms and other health hazards. Poultry farms are a ripe political target in the cattle-rich state, though 

cattle and urban runoff and sewage are also polluters. 

Plaintiff firms including Motley Rice shopped the lawsuit to Oklahoma. The firms would finance the 

litigation and receive up to 50% of the monetary damages. Yet after hearing testimony and evidence 

from both sides, federal Judge Gregory Frizzell was skeptical. 

The state "has not yet met its burden of proving that bacteria in the waters" are "caused by the 

application of poultry litter rather than by other sources, including cattle manure and human septic 

systems," the judge wrote in dismissing Mr. Edmonson's motion for a preliminary injunction. Bacteria 

levels in state waterways were similar regardless of proximity to chicken farms. 

Judge Frizzell also doubted the credibility of some of the state's "experts" whose scientific work hadn't 

been peer-reviewed or published. And he scored the state's attempt to supplement the evidentiary 

record "with reports of alleged 'consulting experts' whose identity and opinions have been shielded [by 

disclosure rules]." 

Then there was the fact that Mr. Edmonson in 1998 had given the state Department of Agriculture, Food 

& Forestry authority to seek an injunction against chicken companies that it believed were violating 

water-quality standards. The state agency never did. 

The chicken case fell apart in 2009 when Judge Frizzell ruled that Oklahoma couldn't seek monetary 

damages-more than $800 million not including punitive damages-unless the Cherokee Nation, whose 

land surrounds the watershed, joined the suit. Otherwise, plaintiff attorneys might get 50% of the award 

while the Cherokee got nothing. Judge Frizzell barred the state's monetary claims, and he was upheld by 

the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Whereupon Mr. Pruitt dropped the case. 

Meantime, poultry producers voluntarily agreed to export their waste out of the region. In 2013 Mr. 

Pruitt negotiated an agreement with Arkansas to enforce regulations on fertilizer runoff and study the 
658 

effect of phosphorus on algae blooms. The goal was to avoid costly litigation and obtain more data 

before imposing more stringent regulations. According to a state study last month, phosphorus levels in 

the Illinois River declined by roughly SO% over the last decade as municipalities and chicken farms 

cleaned up their waste. 

Consent decrees have been a favorite tool ofthe Obama EPA to conscript businesses and local 

governments. But Mr. Pruitt's chicken coup shows that a cooperative approach can be more effective 

and less costly than litigation. Mr. Pruitt will do far more environmental good at EPA by making states 

partners rather than prosecuting them. 
659 

Qcornw:.nAURince ··~~ ' JanuBI')' S, 20li 

De~r President-htect Doll!lld J. Truinp: 

We write to you as evangeli~ and mainline Protestant; Roman Catholic, and Jewish scientists, 

economists, legal scholars, policy experts, and religious leaders in support of your nomination of 

Oklahoma Attorney General SCott Pruitt to the office of Administrator of the federal Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

The BP A has the crucial task of writing and enforcing regulations that apply statutes passed by Congress 

and signed by the President to protect the life and health of AmeriCtllls. Ita work necesserily integmtes 

science, eeooomics, law, politics, and ethics, all of whieh are rooted in religious worldviews. A good 

Administrator must demonstrate expertise in at least some of these. BDd mature understanding of and 

receptivity to the insights of all. Scott Pruitt does. 

As Oklahoma Attomey Genera~ Mr. Pruitt bas demonstrated bls legal expertiso in successful litigation 

to require cOJpOratlons-lncludlng the energy coq10rations so prominent in his state's economy-.-4o 

abide by environmental laws and regulations. He has publicly express«~ hls conviotlon that the EPA's 

role is npt to create law through regulations that exceed the scope of enabling legislation but to 

implement the intent of that legislation and nothing more. That Is, he recognizes that environmental 

policy should~ determined by the people's elected representatives, not by unoleeted, llllllccounteble 

members of the federal bureaucracy. He has also pnblicly opposed the abuse of lbe court system by U$e 

of ~sue-and-settle" to reach sweetheart deals between the EPA and environmental advocacy groups. 

These are some of the obvious ways in which bis legal expertise qualifies him for Administrator. 

Mr. Pruitt has also demonstrated understanding of and open-mindedness toward scientific insights 

crucial to the funnulation and implementation of environmeJrtal n:gulation. He is prepared to hear an 

sides in debates over the risks and benefits of various activities that come under the purview of the EPA 

F'ltlally, as a committed evangelical Christian, Mr. Pruitt has an unbending commitment to human lifu 

and boalth, especially to the protection of the most vulnerable in society. We are pleased to note that a 

large group of religious leaders, including presidents of some of America's largest and most prestigious 

theological seminaries, has also written to you in his support for this reason, and we add our voices to 

theirs. 

Some radical environmentalists and religious activists oppose Mr. Pruitt because he does not embrace 

their exaggerated fears of human-induced global warming-fears that go well beyond the empirical 

evidence crucinl to genuine science-or their antipathy to the dewlopment of the abundant, reliable, 

aflbrdable enersr indispensable to lifting and keeping whole societies out of poverty and the disease and 

premature death that invariably accompany it. We l)tge you therefore to stand firmly behind your 

nominee, and we commit ourselves to supporting him in the confirmation process that lies ahead. We 

welcome you and your Administration to call on us to assist in any way we can. 

Sincerely, 

[lnstilutional associatioos are lOr ldenlif!C8lion and do 1101 

imply ilntl!utlonal endorsement. Add }Our •ianature and set 

addillonalsignen at lmp:llbit.)y/2bW3JpO.} 

l. Raymand P. A<lam11, M.Oiv. (PII.IIOral Theology). D.D 

(Honorary). member, Grace Community Church of Sun 

Valley, Artadla, CA 

2. Gary L. Anderson. MA (Hfslory). Colonel, OSAF 

(retired). Aviation and Civil Engineering. Fruita. CO 
660 

3. William L And<rson, Ph.D. (E<:onomiCJ}, Prolilssorof 

Economics, l'roslbur2 St~le Univ<~rsity, Frostburg. MD 

4. William D. Balgool, Ph.D. (Gcochemiatry), President, 

Environmental &: Resources Technalogy, lne, 

MlcldJctoo, WI 

5. T1111 Bat~ Pb.D. (Climatology), Proressor, Universky of 

Winnipeg. and Ad june! Profilssar, Univmky of 

Manllob! (rCiiml) 

6. Paul Barber, B.S. (Civil Eng~in.R); President ofthe 

Board, Borbor Brothers Conlnlcdng Co. LLC, BtiiOrl 

R.ou&e, LA 

7. Charles G. Boltig. M.S.E.E., M.D., Heartland lnstilute 

pGlfey expen on 1!71VIrooment; Vlrylnia S1>lemlsls lind 

En&lneers lOr Energy IJIId l!!lv!ronmt:nt (VA-SI!EE), 

Cbarlo!tesville, VA 

8. T111101by Beard, Th.M. (Theology), rediod 

missionary/putor, Calva!)' Bible OIUtch, Tappenisl~ 

WA 

9. E. Colvin Beisner, Ph.D. (History), Founder l!lld 

National SpGkes•aan. The Cornwall Alii"""" lOr tbe 

Stewunbbip of CreQtion 

10. VIctoria Blodgett, New Englnn<t Regional Director, 

Aglow lntema!iooal, Southbridg.,_ M A 

11. Carl W. Bogue, Jr., Th.D. (Theology), Pastor Bm<rltus, 

Faith Presbyterian Cbutch, Akron, OH 

12. James A. Borlsml, (Tb.D.). Theology, Profe•••'lr <>f 

ThooiO&Y, Llberty University, Lynchburg, VA 

13. Da\>ld J. Bufltlo, B.S. {Civil Engineering), Li<lemed 

Proftss!ooal Engineer, Denwr, co 14. Danny J. BurroW!, U. CoL (Ret.), USAF, Big Oaks 

Raru:h, Kilgore TX 

!S. Roger L. Burtner, Ph.D. (Ooology), ft>nnl:r Natlorutl 

Scimee Foundation Fellow; fanner Adjunct Proreosor, 

Cue Weotern Reserve Unlversi!y; Princlpa~ Remote 

Sen.sin& Exploration, Pullel1on CA 

16 . .R.onald S. carson, Ph.D. (Nuclear Bagineering), 

Af!llialo Aulsnun Prolissar, University of Washington; 

n:tked Teehnical Fellow, The Booing Conn!JiU1y; 

Adjunct Pro&asor, Seattle Pacillc Univonity; Renton. 

WA 

17. Kenneth Cbikon, Ph.D. (Economics), retired Associate 

Professor ofM111111gemont aod Din:ctor oftbc Jnmtule 

i>rStudyol'E=oomlcs and the EnviroJliDellt, 

Lindenwood University, SL louis, MO 

lB. Rio~. Clmrlcs Clmtgh. M.S. (Aimospherio Ph}'Ji<s); 

retired cblef, U.S. Army Atmospherle Effects TeQ, 

Aberdeen Pro\ing Oround, MD; rcrinod Lt. Col, U.S. 

Air Jloi'C6 Roserve Weadler Offi<er; Prosldent, Biblical 

Fr.unewmk Ministries; ad)mct professor, Chaler 

Theological Seminary, Albuquerque, ·NM 

I 9. Marlt Coppcnges-, Ph.D. {PhUoaophy), Profu...,r of 

Christian Apologelies, Soutftem Bapdat Theological 

Seminaey, Louisville, KY 

20. Donald R. CrQwe, P.E~ B.S. (Mo:dlunic:al Eogincering), 

Founder &. President, The Abaacolte Corporation, 

Planlatlon, FL 

21. Claude C. CulroiiS, Ph.D. (OrglllliC Chemistry), Stalf 

Chenlist (retirod), ExxonMobil, Baton Rougo, LA 

22. Donn Dears, B.S. (Engineering), retired OE Comptny 

Senior Executive, The Villag<JS. FL 

2.3. Mr. Terry W. Oonze, B.S. (Oeologic:aiEnginoering), 

autbor, Cl/,ate Rtalism; Alarml.sm ExpiBed, Wbeat 

Ridse, co 24. Jobn Druz, M.S. (Pkyoics). lndopcndent Scientist, 

Founder, Allianc:e 1br Wile Energy DecisioM (AWED), 

Morebead Cily, NC 

2S. Trent England, J.D. (L;Iw), David and Ann Brow11 

Distinguished Fellow, Oklahoma Council of Public 

Ailllin, Olclahoi1Ul Clly, OK 

26. Carl Enncotrout, l'blladclpbia, PA 

21. Gordon Evans, M.S. (SoD Science), EnYiromnental 

Mane&er, T1le Texas A&M University System, College 

Station, TX 

ll!. l<>seph Farah, Follllder l!lld CEO, WND.com, WND 

Boob, and WND Films, 

19. NcH I. Prank, l'b.D. (Melulrology). farmer Dfm:tor, 

National HurricaJie Center{lll74-19&7), Chief 

Ma:romlogist, KHOU·TV Houston (1987-2008), 

relired, Fukbear, TX 

30. Jo11t1 ~an, B.S. (Engi,_;ng) AFTS, retired 

Anglican priest; Hillcrest, KwaZulu Nlllll~ Sowlt Africa 

ll. Kevin D. Freeman, CFA, B.S., B.A. (l!co110mlcs), 

Founder, mac (National Security fn~t 

Ccmsullllne} Institute, Bartlesville, OK 

32. ~~~~ 'P. Fricke, Ph.D. (Nuc:lear Physics), Senior 

Fellow, American Physical Society, San Diego, CA 

33. Jbn Garlow, Ph.D. (Hislork:al ThcoJosy), Pastor, 

SkyliM Cburcb, Sw. Diego; Olicrsiahl Pastor, The 

Jell!Ron Galherio& US Capitol Building, Washington, 

DC 

34. Albrecht Glatzle, Ph.D. (Agricu~), Retirlld D~ 

of&search, INTI' AS (lnlclatlvaJIBI" Ia lnvostlgocl6n y 

Tnns~rencia do Tccnolcgia Agraril Soslenlblc), 

Fifad~Jtla, Pamguuy 

35. Alan W. Gomes, Ph.D. (Theolcgy}, Professor of 

Theology, Talbot School of Theology, La Mimla, CA 

35. Vicki P. Goodlnlln. B.S. (Engllt-ing), Retired 

Appllcatk>ns Engineer, Pres<Dit, AZ 

37. Rev. PaulS, Gould, Pb.D. (Religicuo Studies), 

missionary, writer, Christian Laym1111's Missionary 

llwngcl!sm 1\st;<M:iallan, Prouor, WA 

38. Joy Orll~Wzd, D. Mill. (Theology), Founder!Direcinr, 

C011lition en Revival; Founder, International Council on 

Blbllcallaenancy, Coordinator, lrnemotkmal Chvtch 

Council Projeet, Murphys, CA 

39. Kamn Gu•hta, Ph.D. (Philosophy of Education). 0. 

]amos Kennedy Ministries, Fort Lauderdale, FL 

40. Onry Habormas, Ph.D. (Philosophy, Hi>tory, and 

Rellelon), DistinauilhedRc50arcb Profeli!Orl!lld Chair, 

Dep8nment of Pbilo$0plly, Uberty University, 

Lynch burg. VA 

4l. Eugene S. Hateh, M.S. (MetootoJoey), Lt. Col, USAF 

{Relinl<l). Colorado Sprincs, CO 

42. William Hepper, Ph.D., Cyrus Fogg Brackett Profussor 

ofPII)'9ics, Emeritus, Plinc:eton University, Prin<:etoo, NJ 
661 

43. Mkbael Hart, M.A. (Medieval a1td English History), 

Ph.D. (abd; Medieval and European Aislor:y). Protbsor 

Emerilua, Ncn11a11 1'ateJ&on School oflnlcmatlonal 

Affain. Carlel<ln University, Ollawa, Canada 

44. Rev. Ron Haffield, M.M. (Bible), Pastor, New Life 

COfllliUIIIkY C!:uch, Orlando, FL 

45. Thomas D. Hennigan, MS. (Environmental Bnd Forest 

Biology), Associate PtofessorofQrganlsm Biology, 

Truelt McConnell University, Cleveland, GA 

46. Rev lrfi>n Hug!Eo, M.Div., Co-Pastor, Sbiloh Orthodox 

Pn:sb)!erilm Chutcb, Raloigh NC 

41. Thomas Ice, Ph.D. (Theology), Executive Director, PreTn'b Ros.arch Carner, Dallas/Port Wortb, TX 

48. ·Klaus Iss)er, Ph.D. (EduCIIIIDn), ProleiSI)rof 

,Discipleship a!Jd Theology, Talbot S~bool cfThcology, 

Biola \Jnivarrny, La Mirada. CA 

49. Sr)<:e w. Jch!ISOQ, Ph.D. (Nuclear Eng!Mering). retited 

Senior Stafl'Soicntlst, Science Applications 

ln~ert~atiooo.l Corporali011, mired PJOle .. ional Nuclear 

Engineer, Stale ofCalifbmia 

SO. Rev. P«er Jones, Ph.D. (Jilcology), Dlteaor, 

ll'lllhX'dlange, Escondido, CA; Bmeritus Profbsorof 

New Tcslll!IOnt, Westntlnstcr Theokiglc;al Semlllar:y, 

Esx:oodido, CA 

Sl. Rev. PbillipO. Kayse<, Plt.D.(Elblc$), Probarof 

Elhics. Wliitefpokl Theological Semi~, Lakelarld. FL 

S2. J.C. KeisWr, Ph.D. (Physics), l'barmaceutteal R.eseerch 

Specialist. 3M Company (ntiffil), Lakeville, MN 

Sl. Hugh Ktm!rlck, Ph.D. (Nuclear EllgiueMing), 

UnWel'sity of Michigan; filrmer Dir-, Plans&. 

Analy5is, Of&e ofNuclear Reoctar Resoon:h, U.S. 

Department orEnergy; retired VP SAJC (SeieN:c 

Appllcadons rnt.matlonal Crnporation), T)IJII>DB 

Ccml!l', VA 

54. Bemanl Kepshire, Ph.D. (Fisheries Science), Oregon 

~ofFish and Wildlife, Oreaon Stale 

lhoiversky {mired), Corvallis, OR 

SS. EdWBid C..ICrog, Ph.D. (Soil Scion~), Uriivcrshy l>f 

!Ninois, Urt.ena-Champeign, retired 

56. Dr. Richard Land, D.Phil (Theology). Prcsi<knl, 

Southern Tlteclo&ical Seminary, Charlotte, NC 

57. Rev. Mll'k J.l.elwn, Ph.D. (Historical Theology), 

Pastor, Peace Rernrrrood Churnh, Gamer, lA 

.:!8. Wille$ K. Lee, Pmsldent. National Federation of 

Republican Assemblies 

.:!9. David Logatel!, Ph.D. (Climatology). Proftossor of 

CfiiiUitclogy and Geography, Un'-sity of Delaware, 

NeWII'k, DE 

60. David H. Lester, Ph.D. (Chemical &giDeerins), retired, 

Fox Island, WA 

61. David H. Lindon, M.Div. (Theology and Bible), 

ASSI$llUlt PIISior, Univershy Prelbylcrlan Church, Las 

Cru=, NM (n:dred) 

62. Richll<l S. Lindz6n, Ph.D. (Applied Mathematic!), 

Allml P. S.Joan Pmli:ssor or Atmospheric Sciences 

Ellreritus, MIT, Cambrldgo, MA 

63. Stephen D. Livesay Ph.D (E«ltcadon!History), 

President, Bryan College, Da)ton TN 

64. Antboqy R. Lupo, Ph.D. (Aimosphoric Soien<e), 

ProiWor, University ofMissouri. Columbia, MO 

65. James F. Mac<lilliYray, CF'l' (reti~ Regiatered 

lnvemnent Aciviser, Albuquerque. NM ~. Matt MadcowlaJc. B.S. (Comltllnicadon Studies), 

Bxecutiw DinK:tor, Figbl For Tomorrow, Austin, TX, 

and Wulllol!llln. DC 

67. Marlon Leroy Midden, Ph.D. (Chemistry), Pmf'essorof 

Chemistry(Relired), Missouri Baptl!t College, St 

Louis,MO 

58. Jefti'ey Mahn, M.S. (Nuclear Engineering), Sandia 

National lAboratories (Retired). Albuq1Je11!Ue, NM 

69. Mark P. Manln, LCSW-C (Social Work), Clinical 

Social Wodo:t. Brook Lane Heailll Services, 

!illgerslown, MD 

70. Rod D. Martin, J.D., Fouader and CEO, The Marrin 

Orpnlntion, Destin, FL; Oistinguisloed Vioiting 

Prolessor ofHistmy and Oovcmment, Hamlbal 

LaGrange University, Hannibal, MO 

?I. The Mo;t Rev. WOllam Mikler (Ph.D, Biblical 

Philosophy), Archblshap, Commuofo Christiana, 

8anfold.FL 

72. Tracy Miller, Pb.D. (Economies), Falla Chun:h, VA 

73. Craig Vincem Mltchal~ Ph.D. (Philosophy/Etlllcc), 

Auoclate PmfemrofPhilosaphy, Pollticnnd 

EI'Ollllmics, Crls\¥ell College, Dallas, TX 

7'1. Rev. William G. Moore, Ph.D. (Qiun:h History), 

Pastor, Comento"" Baptbt Cllurdl, Clinton, SC 

75. R. Ma1k Mussar, M.D!y., l'aslor and Misslollary, Grace 

Redeemer Bible Cbwch, Olympia, WA 

76. BaiTy L. M)'el'f. Ph.D. (Coqluter Science), Associate 

Protbssor ofCollljJU!er Solence and Clllir, Matbematfl:s 

and Computer Seience Depertment. Northwest 

Nazar""" Unlvenlry, Nampa. ID 

n ~- ErB< V. M:ybrbeq;, Ph.D. (International Business), 

Tactical Chapllm, Qwmtica. VA 

18. Gearge Paul, PILD. (Ph)<'los), MBA, Senior lAoturer in 

Phl"ko. Univenlly ofNew Soutb Wale$ (retired), 

consullam in Intellectual Property, f!ydney, NSW, 

Au81raHa 

79. Franklin Ed l'a)'DI>, M.D., Assnclate Profossor, Medical 

College of Georgia, Augusta Universtty, Au1!1151a, GA 

(retired}; co-tQUDdcr, .kntmal of Blbacal Ellrlcs 111 

Medicine 

l!O. Philip PenllllllCO, Ph.D. (Chemical Ph)'Sics), M.SC • (Oeoph,pics), .Pro1bsrn' ofMalbematics, University or 

Puerto Rico, Rio Pledtas, PUClto Rico 

it. Rlcld Pepin, Author, IActurer, !nstruc:lar, !nsiltute on 

.the Conltilution. Sprlagfleld, OH 

&2. Mall< Pinkerton, MD (Family Medicine), Pmltssor of 

Pharmacy Practice, CeduMllo Universily, Cedarville, 

OH 

83. Joseph A. Pipe Jr. Ph.D. (Thel)ioJ:Y), President and 

Prolti!!OI' ofSysremadc: Theology, Oreetwille 

Presb)terlan Theological Semlt1ary, Greenvltla, SC 

84. Evarett Piper, Ph.D., President, Oldahoma Wesleyan 

Un!Vorsily, Bartlosvnkt, OK 

85. Ronald W. Pritchett, M.S. (MQTM.......Mas!e of 

Technolo&Y Management), B.S. (Geolosical 
662 

EQglncc::rtng), American lnstirute of Prolilssnnal 

Oeoklgilts, Lone Tree, CO 

~ Iay W. Ricllards, PhD. (Pbllosopby), R.esearcb 

Professor, Catl1o6c University of America, Washington, 

DC 

87. Rollen J, Romano, D.Min. (Econoroi<: Ethics), Founder, 

Heartist Mini!trles; AlA Deoign-Baikl Arcbi!ect, 

Charlot~~:, NC 

88. Caleb Stewalt Rossiter, Ph.D, (Polley Analysis), 

Adjunct Profi:osor, American Univel'5ity, Wosblngton, 

DC 

89. Fred P. Rumok B.S. (Geology), P. Geo; CPO; P. Ocol; 

llnagy Conoultsm, Cal,gary, Allerta, Canada 

90. lame:! H. Rust, Ph.D. (En&inceriog), l'nlfessor of 

Nuclear Engmwlng (retired), <l<:vlglaTcch, Atlanla, 

GA.: pol~ advisor, The Heartland Institute. Chic3tlo, 

IL 

91. Anthony J. Sidor, M.S. (Environmental Scie;nee, Air 

Pollution C01urol), Certifilld Consaltillz Mete.owlogiot, 

Adjunct Assoclote Professor, Gerleva Colleae, BeaYCt" 

Falb, PA 

92. Dnryl Sas, Plt.D. (Biology), Pro&.ssor of Biology, 

OenevaCollege, Beaver Fall., !'A 

93. Morl< R. Saucy Ph.D (Theology), Professor of 

S)>stematic Theology, Talbot School of Theology, Le 

Mirada,CA 

~- Richanl L Sauer, M.S. (Environmental Engineering], 

CoL, U.S. Air Force Resorve (ret.), NASA (ret), 

League City, TX 

95. Harbert Sclllossbcrg. Ph.D. (Hislory), Fellow, Elhics 

and Public Policy Center, WIIBhlngton, DC 

96. Xslly Shlll:kelliml, J.D. (l..aw), l'resldem and CEO, 

First Uberty lnstituto, Plano, TX 

<n. Thomas P. Sheahen, Ph.D. (Physics), retired mearch 

scient ill spe<:iBfizing in energy issues, fD11110tly with 

!Cl'lnl diffmm natlonallabon!toric:a 

98. David Shonnann, l'b.O. (Aq&llllic Science}, President, 

DIVE, U.C.lialciwa. HI 

99. Willie Soon, Pb.O. (AerOOJli!C<' Enr;ineerillg). 

independent scientist, Cambridge, MA 

!OO.Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. (M~eorology), Principal 

Research Sclentlsl, &rth System Science Cenla', 

University of Alabama, Hw111vlllc, AL, lllld Lead 

Selent ill, NASA Aqua AMSR·3 Satellite Remote 

Sensing Program 

101,Rev.t.arry H. Stallard, M.Div, Retired Pastor, 

Ed£011101K Prcsb)teri111 Church, Bristol, TN 

102. Nldtolt!s Stellle, 9.A. (Polllical &icocc), CEO, Tho 

Stehle Organlzatloa; Praident, Campaign lbr 

Americr.'s l'ultm!; Little Rock, AR 

IOJ.Frank SlevctiSOII, J.D.~). retired President, NCF 

Tille, J~nvllle, FL 

I04.Rk:hanl F. Stonn, PE, C£M, retired Cll&ineu, Hilton 

Head, SC 

I OS. Owen D. Stracltan, Ph.D. (Theology), Professor, 

M idWI!IIem llapdst Theological Seminary, Kansal 

City, MO 

!06.Rl!v. Keiml!lhG. Talbot, Ph.D.,Th.D.(DiYinity), 

President and Professor of'Theology and Apoloaedc:., 

Whitefield Tbeologlcal Seminary and Co~ 1'115tor, 

Christ Presbl'fcrlan Chon:ft (RPCOA), LakeiBJid, PL 

107.T!mothy D. TorrelL Pb.D. (Economics), Associate 

Professor, Woflbrd College, Spartanburg, SC 

lOS. David J. Theroux, M.S. {Mechanleal Engineering), 

M.B.A. (B.uiness Economics), Founder and President, 

Independent ln5tllutc, Oakland, CA 

109.C. JDscph Touhill, Ph.D. (Envlrornental Bllgineering). 

P.E., DEE, F. AICbl!, F .AliCE. President, Touhin 

Technology Mllnagcment, Jemlaon, PA 

llO.Rev. Re....-end Thomas Trouwborst, M.B.A., M.Div., 

Pastur, Calvary Orthodox Presb)'teriall Church, 

GJens;de, !'A 

! I l.Oary Tuck, Ph.D. (Bible El<posilion), Prore..or of 

Biblical LitC1111un!, Wcstcm Semlnacy, lo• Gllos, CA 

II2.L.L {Don) VeinotJr, Pte$ident, Midwest Christlon 

Outreach, r...:~ Wonder Lake, lL 

113.Jie~ J. Ventrella, J.D., Ph.D. (Law), SenlorCol.llsef, 

ADianco Defelldlng Freedom. Scoltsd .. c, AZ 

114.1amcs A W111Uss, Ph.D. (~le,), Professor of 

Physies, Prcsbytcrlon College, Clinton, SC 

liS.Anlhorly Watls, American MetC<lf1>logbl Socletyeertlfled televbion and ndlo meteorologist (r<tiri!d), 

owner ofWattsUpwkhThllt.c:om, O.lco, CA 

116.Dnvid F. Wells, Pb.D (Theology), Distingui'lhed 

Research Proltssor, Oordon-OKiwell Theological 

Sa""'-Y, South Hamlkoo, MA 

117.Scott E. WUllanu, Ph.O. (Applied Math<lmetioo], 

Mooument, COlorada, USA 

118.Pclor W, Wood, I'll. D. (Antl>ropology). Preoidcnt, 

National Assoc;idion ofSc:llolan, Now YD!'k, NY 

I 19. Thomas R. W)'Slllllllsr, B.A., Meteorologist, NASA 

(Ret.); Chair, Woll:r Day 2()13, UNESCO JHE Wiler 

Rl!search lnatl!ute, Delft, 'lbe Notharlands; Choir, 

Ocelnognphlc Section, 2016 World~ of 

Ocean, Qingdato, China; NASA TRCS chaner member, 

Ogimquit,Mil 

120.V. Willimn Zmlslowslc~ Jr., AlA, NCARB,IIDA, B.S.. 

(Axbltocllll'o, Land Plllnnillllo Urbu [)e)ign, 

Hnvlroamental Design), lnlttlliltlonal Design 

Co119Wmnt, Boulder, co 

121.Betijamln Z~hsr, Ph.D. (Economics), John G. Searle 

Chair, American J!ntarprise Institute, Washington, DC 

[Add your signa!urs ODd see adclitkma! signers at 

bttp:f/bjt,!yl2hW311(). Con~~!«: MeJIIIII Toombs, Director of 

ComliiUDicatiollS, COrnwall Alliance fortbe Stewardship of 

C1011tlon, Me!!llll@C!!QI\WII!A!ljapce,otfi.J 
663 

AEA Leads Coalition Urging Pruitt Confirmation 

01/12/17 

Today, the American Energy Allianc~ released a coalition letter signed by more than 20 

organizations urging the Senate to confirm Scott Pruitt as the next EPA Administrator. 

Below is an excerpt from the letter: 

Attorney General Pruitt has consistently fought for Oklahoma families and communities 

and has been a stalwart defender against federal intrusion into state and individual rights. 

Notably, Mr. Pruitt led a multi-state effort opposing the EPA's unlawful attempt to take 

over the nation's electricity grid under section llt(d) of the Clean Air Act. The EPA's 

plan would shutter an estimated 40 GW of reliable and affordable energy, unnecessarily 

harming American families for little to no environmental benefit. 

In recent years, the EPA has been chronically late on complying with deadlines. In a study 

assessing 1 ,000 deadlines across the four major stationary source programs, the 

Competitive Enterprise Institute found that the EPA missed 84 percent of their Clean Air 

Act deadlines and was late by an average of 4.3 years. Mr. Pruitt will work to get the EPA 

back on track and in compliance with its statutory Clean Air Act responsibilities. 

Attorney General Pruitt has stood up for states, families, and the Constitution by opposing 

the Administration's unconstitutional regulatory overreach through the re-definition of the 

"waters of the United States." This rule was so invasive that small ditches on family farms 

or near businesses could have been subject to federal regulation. Mr. Pruitt filed suit 

against the EPA, refusing to subject Oklahomans and other Americans to this 

unconstitutional regulation without exhausting all Jegal pathways. 

Mr. Pruitt has demonstrated his commitment to upholding the Constitution and ensuring 

the EPA works for American families and consumers. Under Mr. Pruitt, we hope the EPA 

will follow the laws set forth by Congress and cooperate with states to advance its mission 
664 

of keeping our air clean and our water pure. We fully support Mr. Pruitt for the position of 

EPA Administrator and encourage the Senate to swiftly approve his nomination. 

Doug MacGillivray 

Director of Fedeml Affairs 
665 

January 12, 2017 

AEA AMERICAI.J 

ENERGY ALLIANCE Dear senators, 

HERITAGE ;,<'AC,TION ,:~·,:<ft 

FOR AMERICA 

~CANS Jt"t- 11\.XREFORM 

COMPETITIVE 

~,_ ENTERPRISE 

• , INSTITIJTF 

~reedomWorks 

111-!!J§j_ GROWTH. 

AMERICANCOMMITMENT 

E@ELEGAL 

l!oo••WY & IM¥h ........ 1 L•1•t 11\CIIt~lll 

TAXPAYERS ~ ~l l j ! ' l\ 

ALLIANCE 

We, the undersigned, express our strong support for the nomination of Edward Scott Pruitt to the position of Administrator of 

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA}. Mr. Pruitt is highly 

qualified to lead the nation's chief air and water regulatory 

agency. We fully endorse his selection and urge the Senate to 

confirm Mr. Pruitt as the next EPAAdminl5trator. 

Attorney General Pruitt has consistently fought for Oklahoma 

families and communities and ha.s been a stalwart defender 

against federal intrusion into state and individual rights. Notably, 

Mr. Pruitt led a multi-state effort opposing the EPA's unlawful 

attempt to take over the nation's electricity grid under section 

111 (d) of the Clean Air Act. The EPA's plan would shutter an estimated 40 GW of reliable and affordable energy, unnecessarily 

harming American families for little to no environmental benefit' 

In recent years, the EPA has been chronically late on complying with deadlines. In a study assessing 1,000 deadlines across 

the four major stationary source programs, the Competitive 

Enterprise Institute found that the EPA missed B4 percent of 

their Clean Air Act deadlines and was late by an average of 4.3 

years.' Mr. Pruitt will work to get the EPA back on track and in 

compliance with its statutory Clean Air Act responsibilities. 

Attorney General Pruftt has stood up for states, families, and the 

Constitution by opposing the Administration'!! unconstitutional 

regulatory overreach through the re-definition of the "waters of 

the United States." This rule was 110 invasive that small ditches 

on family farms or near businesses could have been subject to 

federal regulation. Mr. Pruitt filed suit agaln11t the EPA. refusing 

to subject Oklahomans and other Americans to this unconstitutional regulation without exhausting all legal pathways. 

Attorney General Pruitt understands that air quality in the United 

States has dramatically improved over the years. According to 

the EPA, since 1970 alone air pollution emissions have fallen by 

70 percent even as we have used more coal, natural gas, oil, 

and grew the economy by 240 percent. Mr. Pruftt is committed 

to continuing these trends. 

Some claim that Mr. Pruitt opposes clean air and water. This 

could not be further than the truth. Mr. Pruitt respects and upholds the Constitution, and understands that many of the nation's challenges regarding clean air and water are best met at 

the state and local level. It is, in fact the states that implement 

many of the nation's environmental lam, and for good reason. 

1 https://www.eia.planal)"ls/requests/powerplanb/cleanplan/ 

'https:J/ce!.orgtcontenUepa%E2%80%99s-der<lictlon-duty 
666 

.... .!., .... institu~e 

nftl Mf!.~.~~e,r, l~.stit~te 

I 

TfiE liJ,:ARTLA:-10 1:-\STITI!TE 

IICii 

ENERGY POliCY NElWORK 

~RIO GRAN!Jll PouNIJA110N 

Ulll'kl''•fii'I'I.1J!Itt~rt'<•!'~}:.l'll/ll'l' 

@H~ + 2,' i ~ ~5 

B;\L:\1\CED E.\ElWY J'f)t; 1 E ·..: :~ . .:. 

MONTANA - POLICY INSTITUTE 

-~f~ississippi Q!nter .. '\. fo, Public Policy .... 'H~ , __ • """"~(.··-·······-

The federal government is not the end-all, be-all solution . 

Empowering states to take their own steps in addressing environmental concerns promotes responsiveness, the responsible use of taxpayer resources, and ensures that the people 

closest to the issues and with the most knowledge of what is 

needed are given the power to do just that. 

Mr. Pruitt has demonstrated his commitment to upholding the 

Constitution and ensuring the EPA works for American families 

and consumers. Under Mr. Pruitt, we hope the EPA will follow the laws set forth by Congress and cooperate with states 

to advance its mission of keeping our air clean and our water 

pure. We fully support Mr. Pruitt for the position of EPAAdministrator and encourage the Senate to swiftly approve his nomination. 

Sincerely, 

Thomas Pyle, American Energy Alliance 

Michael Needham, Heritage Action for America 

Grover Norquist, Americans fer Tax Reform 

Kent Lassman, Competitive Enterprise Institute 

Adam Brandon, FreedomWorks 

David Mcintosh, Club for Growth 

Phil Kerpen, American Commitment 

Craig Richardson, Energy and. Environment Action Team 

David Williams, Taxpayers Protection Alliance 

Harry Alford, National Black Chamber of Commerce 

Jim Martin, 60 Plus 

Andrew Langer, Institute for Uberty 

Independence Institute 

Richard Martin, Americans for Limited Government 

Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes (COAST) 

Brett Healy, Maciver Institute 

Joseph Bast, Heartland Institute 

George Landrith, Frontiers of Freedom 

Randy Eminger, Energy Policy Network 

Paul Gessing, Rio Grande Foundation 

Mike Nasi, Balanced Energy for Texas 

Brent Mead, Montana Policy lnstiMe 

Forest Thigpen, Mississippi Center for Public Policy 
667 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chainnan 

January 17, 2017 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso: 

The und.,.slgned agriculture and associated organizations write to urge your support for confirmation of 

Scott Pruitt to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Mr. Pruitt has distinguished hlmself.as a thoughtful attorney dedicated to disciplined adherence to the rule 

of law. Further, he has a reputation for careful consideration of differing perspectives as preparation for 

taking measured actions. We respectfully submit that Mr. Pruitt possesses the skills to ensure EPA rules 

and actions are rooted In law and guided by science. 

Please support confirmation of Scott Pruitt to be EPA Administrator. 

Sincerely; 

Agricultural Retailers Association 

American Bakers Association 

American Farm Bureau Federation 

Am.,.tcan Seed Trade Association 

California Specialty Crops Council 

Corn Refiners Association 

CropUfe America 

International Franchise Association 

National Association Qf Wheat Growers 

National Cattlemen's Beef Association 

National Cotton Council 

National Council of Fanner Cooperatives 

National Grain and Feed Association 

National Oilseed Processors Association 

National Onion Association 

National Pork Producers Council 

National Potato Council 

National Turkey Federation 

National Sorghum Producers 

North American Export Grain Association 

North American Meat Institute 

Northwest Horticultural Council 

Southeastern lumber Manufacturers Association 

U nlted Egg Producers 

United Fresh Produce Association 

U.S. Apple Association 

USA Rice 

Western Growers Association 
668 

ACRICI'I:rl'I\AL 

RETAILERS 

Ac;sOClt\T!O,'\: 

Jnnuary9,2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment & Public Works 

United States Senate 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6176 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment & Public Works 

United States Senate 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6175 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

On behalf of the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA), I urge you to support the nomination 

of Scott Pruitt as Administrator of the U;S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 

encourage a Yes vote in favor of his confirmation. 

Ml'. Pruitt, currently serving as Attorney General for the state of Oklahoma, has earned 

bipartisan respect and recognition for his expertise in constitutional law and the federal 

regulatory .system. He is an ideal nominee who would provide much-needed balance at the helm 

of EPA between environmental regulation and economic growth. He would ensure that the 

Agency follows the laws written by Congress and enforces them fairly, understands the 

challenges faced by American agribusinesses and their fanner customers, and will work with the 

states and regulated industries in a cooperative manner to help protect the environment. 

ARA members create tens of thousands of jobs and contribute billions of dollars in economic 

activity across the nation. Over the past several years EPA bas issued UllJleceSSary, burdensome, 

and on many occasions, unlawful federal regulations that have caused significant economic 

hardship on American farmers and agribusinesses. On occasion the Agency has departed from 

its statutory foundation of science-based risk assessment. The Agency blatantly conducted a 

social media campaign in support of its "Clean Water Rule" (otherwise known as WOTUS), 

which was conduct unbecoming a science-based regulatory agency and was perhaps even illegal. 

America needs an EPA Administrator that wm ensure decisions are based on risk-based analysis and peer-reviewed science, not based on politics and social media campaigns. Attorney General 

Pruitt will provide the proper balance urgently needed at the EPA. 

ARA fully supports his nomination and encourages you to vote to confirm him as the next EPA 

Administrator. Thank. you fur your review and consideration of this request! 

~ ~ ;1 W.DarenCop~ President & CEO 

115615111 Slleet NW, Sulle 500 I WaslllnQion, O.C. 20005 

Phone: (202) 457-C8251 Fll,lC {:102) ~57-0884 

!nfo@aradc.cr; I www.aradc.Ofll 
669 

JalHHU'Y tO. 2017 

Tne HnnMOtbie John B.,;,.rrnsso, Chairman 

410 Dirksen S<:natc: Office Stdg. 

Wnshinglon, DC 20510-6175 

Tht= Hcnorable Tom Carper, Rar.k.ing Member 

456 Ditk.sen Senate Offict Bldg 

Washington. DC 10510--6175 

On behaf( of c-aitleml!n and women, the undersigned organl'ls.tions strO!lgly support the norninntil)n of Oklahoma Attorney 

Gettetlll (AG) &:ott Pruitt far Administrator of the United State Environmental Protection Agency {EPA}. In the United Stiltes, 

the cattle Industry represents the: large~t segment -of agriculture and .cnttle farmers and rom:hers represent the targest land ownergroup. We are pleased to see General Pruitt as the nominee for IWA Administrator. 

General Pruitt will bring a scienc-e hated, c<~mmon sense approach to the strategies and objectives of the EPA. Mr. Pruitt understands 

theimportanceofsaundwin~winpolicythatwllltranslatejntollPAttrategiesthatwarl<:topror«ttheenvironmentwhllelmproving 

America's ngricu!rure productivity. He knows tirsthnnd th:tt funners and rnncher.s are !ht. >Origimll ~ of the environment 

with -ur1 cnparalleled CQmmi.tmcnt to responsible naturt~l mou:rc::e management that yields multl~generational improvem~t. 

Simply put, Mr. Pruitt se<:s clearly that agriculture and envfrotlment are nat opposing terms bttt rather are <.:omplementary. He will 

work to -cultivate that rdntionship which will lead to the United States:1eadi!lg in focd nnd fiber pmduction whlle improving the 

environment in which ft ls accompiished 

We enwunge your support for Attorney General Swtt Pruitt and we look fun'lll.rd to worlting with him as u partner for shared 

;Hrategi~:s and solutions. that benefit l:he envirQnment and agriculture productivity. 

Sim:erdy, 

Alnlw.mn Catt1.e1nen's Association 

Arizona Catde Feeders Assodution 

Ariwna Cuttle Grm~rs' Association 

Arkansus Olttleanen's A,\;Sociation 

CaUfornia CaUiemen's Association 

Colorado Cuttlt'men's ;\.ssodat!on 

CoiOf'!ldo t.ivt'Stock Association 

Florida Cattlemen's AnO(:iation 

GeQrg!a Catt!emep's A~sociation 

H&Wilil Cattlemen's Associll.tion 

f!Unois Beef Asso-da.tion 

lown Cattlemen's Association 

lndiana .Beef Association 

Kansas livestock Associatkm 

KentlK'ky Cattlemen's AsoodaUon 

Michigan Cattlemen's Association 

MissiWppi Cattlemen's Assodation 

Missouri CaU!emen's Assodation 

Montuno Stockgrowcr's Asscxiation 

Nebrasb Cattlemen 

Nevoda Catttemen's Assod:~Uon 

New Mexko- Cattle Grmver:s' Asrodatlon 

New Mexico Wool Grower$, Inc. 

New York Beef Producer's Auodatlon 

North Carollnu Cattlcmcn:S AMo(;iatt;;m 

North Dakom Stockman's Association 

Ohio Catt!eme!1:r. AAociation 

Ok"Wloma Cattlemen's AWJoctaHon 

Oregun Cattlemen's Associati-on 

Pennsylvania C01ttlemen'3 Auodatton 

South Carolina. Catt!~men'.s Association 

South Dakola Cattlemen's Association 

Tennessee Cattlemen's AsSGci&ion 

Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers 

Texlls. C;~ttie Peedet'll Association 

Virginia Cattlemen's AssociQtion 

Wyoming Stock Gmwers As..wdatlon 
670 

ERCC 

Electric 

Reliability 

Coordinating 

Council 

Sen. John A. Rarrasso. Chairman 

January 17,2017 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Otlice Building 

Washington, DC 2051 0-617 5 

Sen. Thomas R. Carper, Ranking Minority Member 

Senate C'omminee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

2001 M Street, NW- Suite 900 

Washington, DC 20036 

(202) 8285800 

Re: Con.>ideration of the Hon. E. Scott Pruitt for the Post of Administrator, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Dear Chairman Ban-asso and Ranking Member Carper. 

II is our understanding that the Senate Committee on Environmcnl and Public Works 

(F.PW) will hold a hearing on Wednesday. January 18, 2017, to consider the nomination 

Ok!nhmna Attorney General Scott Pruitt for the post of Administrator of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency {cPA). A~ an organization representing electric power companies in various 

regions of the United States on Clean Air Act and other environmental issues, the Electric 

Reliability Coordinating Council fiJid its members have worked with Attorney General Pruitt and 

his team on various topics including the EPA Clean Power Plan {CPP). Having found him to be 

highly professionul. thoughtful, and ellcctive at representing the interests of his stnte, ERCC is 

pleased to offer its endorsement for his swift eontirmation. 

There is little doubt that Attorney General Pruitt has fully immersed himself in the 

intricacies of the environmental statutes that form the basis of EPA's authori:r.ation as an 

administrative agency. Too often, as in rhe case ofCPP, the Agency llllS strayed ti·om its original 

purpose. its statutes, and the intent Con!!ress had in mind as it assigned EPA tasks. The public at 

large, the environme!lt. and EPA itself are better served when the Agency adheres closely to the 

statutes that define its mission without attempt to stretch those' slatutes beyond their logical 

breaking point. Attorney General Pruitt's noteworthy commitment to the rule of law and 

transparency in the administrative process should ensure that all sides are heard and that resulting 

regulations are firml} grounded ami el1ective. 
671 

Some have suggested that Anorney General Pruitt's previous opposition lo particular 

EPA rules should fonn lhc basis for a recusal should he ioin EPA. We believe this argument to 

be inaccurate. First, Attorney General Pruitt wa:; not pu~suing personal interests.. private mutters 

or defending enforcement actions. His ctlbns constitute an open c:omesting of rules of general 

applicability, little different from nllcmaking comments or other attempts at appropriate 

participation in the process. fn tht: cuse or CPP. nearly all the states have taken a posilion in 

court that may differ from where EPA ultimately comes out {Ill the rule. Surely, it cannot be the 

case that legal offiet:rs and environmentill officials from all states are somehow disqualified. As 

the current EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has noted on several occasions. she too 

panicipated in litlgalion against the EPA in her previous state role before joiuing the Agency. In 

any event. Allomey General Pruitt does no\ seek to join as a lawyer representing the Agency, but 

rather as ils Administrator. Glib citations to legal conflicts rules are not applicable. 

Some have questioned whether Attorney General Pruiu can keep an open mind on issues 

before lhe Agency in light of past po:.itions taken or familiarity with the energy industry writ 

large. Our experience observing Attorney Gencrnl Pruitt has led us to an opposite conclusion. 

He takes his role very seriously and does not adopt positions until he has put the various interests 

fully through their paces. Correctly, he views the administrative process as an iterative one 

where all can make their legal, policy and scientific points as relevant to Lhe outcome. We would 

remind his detractors thatlO oppose the CPP or any particular rule is not to doubt the importance 

or existence of the underlying environmental condition such rules seek to address. 

Over thalast decade and a hall: ERCC has argued that EPA should, as President Obama 

clearly stated in his January 18. 2011 Execuuve Order 13563, "tailor its regulations to impose 

the leas.L burden 011 society:· and that it should "propose or adopt a re!lulation only upon a 

reasoned determinatinn that its benefits justify its costs." In !he area of electric power, failure Lo 

calibrate our environmental standards oorrectly may result in no greater real protection but may 

inflict significant damage on those in society least able to affurd it, such as those living in 

poverty or on fixed incomes. If Attorney General PruiU is continned, we have every confidence 

he will be able to strike an appropriate balance of environmental and economic objectives. 

Thank you for your consideration of our views. 

cc: United States Senators 

-2-
672 

<_j~~~~~\~ f j;ri_ J,\ 'l' • Jr.J ·.-

·,;;:~~~J 

STATE OF ALABAMA 

OFFICE OF THE ATIORNEYGENERAL 

LUTHER STRANGE AT'TOtUIET~ 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

January 4, 2017 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, District of Columbia 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

513 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, District of Columbia 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

As the attorneys general of our respective states, we write to express our unqualified 

support for our colleague and the Attorney General of Oklahoma, E. Scott Pruitt, as 

Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

As attorneys general, we understand the need to work collaboratively to address threats 

to our environment that cross state lines, as well as the importance of a federal counterpart 

in the EPA Administrator who possesses the knowledge, experience, and principles to 

work with our states to address issues affecting our environment. We believe that no one 

exemplifies these qualities more than Scott Pruitt. 

As the Attorney General of Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt developed expertise in environmental 

law and policy. Hll negotiated a historic water rights settlement with Indian tribes that 

preserved the ec;osystems of scenic lakes and rivers; he worked with his Democrat 

counterpart in Arkansas to reduce pollution in the lllil\ois River; and he represented the 

interests of Oklahomans in rate cases against utility companies and in numerous actions 

against those who contaminated his state's air and water. 

Attorney General Pruitt is committed to clean air and clean water, and to faithfutly 

executing the environmental laws written by Congress. He believes that environmental 

regulations should be driven by State and local governments--a notion endorsed by 

Congress in the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. When our nation is confronted with 

issues affecting the environment that are not covered by a particular statute, Scott will 

come to Congress for a solution, rather than inventing power for his agency. He 

wholeheartedly believes in a strong Environmental Protection Agency that carries out its 

proper duties, providing a backstop to state and local regulators as they develop 

environmental regulations suited to the needs of their own communities. 
673 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

January 4, 20 17 

Page Two 

Scott Pruitt is more than just an exemplary state auorney general, he is. also our friend. 

A man of deep faith who is committed to his family and to his friends, Scott seeks always 

to do the right thing. His friendship and leadership have been invaluable to us over the 

years. 

The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency plays a critical role in our 

Nation's government. Attorney General Pruitt has proven over the course of his career 

that he has the right character, experience, and knowledge to serve as the Administrator 

of the EPA. We urge the Senate to confirm his nomination. 

Sincerely, 

r14f..f- ./:./.} ~ - /I. r_-::: 

Jeff Landry 

Attorney General 

State of louisiana 

Marty 

~-

Jackley 

Attorney General 

State of South Dakota 

t\~~ 

Mark Brnovich 

Attorney General 

State of Arizona 

IV# 

Brad Schimel 

Attorney General 

State of Wisconsin 

Alan Wilson 

Attorney General 

State of South Carolina 

P~tum1fl! 

Patrick Morrisey 

A!torney General 

State of West Virginia 

-.:-:Hww ~ ci f.t7tr_ 

Herbert Slatery 

Attorney General 

State of Tennessee 

;L ?u.x.4-u 

Ken Paxton 

Attorney General 

State of Texas 

L.~ 9w~'t/- Luther Strange 

Attorney General 

State of Alabama 

Attorney 

!:~ General 

State ofNevada 

,---4 r:-:·~ .. ~/'t- '-''-" 

Curtis Hill 

Attorney General 

State of Indiana 

~~ 

Bill Schuette 

Attorney General 

State of Michigan 
674 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

January 4, 2017 

Page Three 

Attorney 

!tf£~ General 

State of North Dakota 

,1£ dl {,LA.,(___ 

~svfarr 

Attorney General 

State of Georgia 

/ - ,_)_ ~- /.#17 

Leslie Rutledge 

Attorney General 

State of Arkansas 

State 

Attorney 

Lawrence 

of Ida 

General 

Wasden 

no 

~ 

Attorney 

J~y General 

State of Missouri 

Tim Fox 

Attorney General 

State of Montana 

Peter Micbael 

Attorney General 

State of Wyoming 

~ Sean Reyes 

Attorney General 

State of Utah 

Attorney General 

State of Florida 

:D.e.J: .5~..:.£(- Derek Schmidt 

Attorney General 

State of Kansas 

Mike DeWine 

Attorney General 

State of Ohio 
675 

MATIHEWG. ... _ BEVI~ 

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT CABINET 

The Honorable John 88l'l'llll90 

300Sowt:R Boul£vARD 

FRANKfORT, KENTUCKY 411601 

TEWI!OIIe .so:!·l64-JJlO 

l'<LCF.-: 502·364-7484 

January 17,2017 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, District of Columbia 20510 

The Honorabh: Tom ClllpCr 

513 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, Distri~t ofColumbia20510 

Dear Chainnan Bamwo and Ranking Member Carper: 

CMRLESG.SN ... VELY S.OitoUil 

R. BRUCE SCOTT OI:JVn'SKCliET_..., 

As the S=ctary of the Energy and Environment Cabinet fur the Commonwealth of 

Kentucky, I am offering support fur the appointment of Attorney General of Oklahoma E. Scott 

Pruitt to tlle position of Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As you 

are well aware, the EPA led by the Administrator is a powerful regulatory agency that can 

impact the landscapes of energy, environment, and the everyday lives of Americans. The 

Administrator must evaluate these impacts for all citizens of the United States and not limit the 

evaluations to select interest groups to promote their ideologies. 

It is our opinion funned ftom past actions that Attorney General Pruiit will offer a 

pragmatic, reasonable approach to environmental protection through appropriate regulatory 

developmenL Mr. Pruitt's positions on the Water of the United States (WOTUS) and the 

Clean Power Plan (CPP) are aligned with the Commonwealth's desire for "cooperative 

federalism." Mr. Pruitt's recognition of the states' abilities to cany out the obligations of the 

Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act is also a shared understanding. During the previous 

administration, EPA ignored many states' concerns and comments regarding WOTUS and 

CPP. Ultimately, states will carry the overwhelming bunlen of implementing and enforcing 

EPA regulations. The expertise of state officials should not be ignored and substituted with 

the opinions of third party interest groups. As u state Attorney General, Mr. Pruitt recognizes 

the cn1ical role of state environmental agenc~es. 

Kcntu<kyUnbri<llo:dSpiric.cam 
676 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

January 17,2017 

Page Two 

Another area of agreement with Mr. Pruitt is the consideration of the devastating 

economic impacts from recent EPA rulemaking. It is our opinion that the EPA has been allowed 

to ignore the balance between costs and benefits for the past eight years. When promulgating the 

new source performance standards (NSPS) to regulate greenhouse gases from electric l!enerating 

units, EPA admitted that the proposed rule was expected ..... to have no, or negligible, costs or 

monetized benefits associated with it."1 I am certain and confident that Attorney General Pruin 

will not propose such regulatory actions that fail to account for the costs and identify any 

associated benefits. · 

In closing, I request that you consider this letter ofsupport for Attorney General Scott 

Pruitt and confirm his nomination as the Administrator ofEPA. If you have specific questions to 

this letter of support, please do not hesitate to conlllct me at your convenience. 

Sincerely, 

~ 

1 Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Stalldards ofPerfonnance ror Greenhouse Gas Emissions ror New 

StatiOillll')' Soun:es: Elcc:tric Ucility Genenuing Units (EPA-4521RI2-00I, March 20!2). 
677 

For Immediate Release 

January 5, 2017 

Media Contact: M~dja@plt.gov 

v,ewthis ~mw! in yllm browser 

Statement from U.S. Senator Joe Manchin and EPA 

Administrator-Designate Scott Pruitt 

(Washington, DC)- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator-designate Scott Pruitt 

today met with u.s. Senator Joe Manchin N'N·D) on Capitol Hill to discuss Mr. Pruitt's upcoming 

hearing before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works committee. 

Below is a statement from EPA Administrator-designate Pruitt: 

"Senator Joe Manchin and I had a very good and productive meeting today. Senator Manchin has 

long been a leader in advancing a balanced energy policy that both protects the environment and 

enables economic growth. We discussed the many ways the EPA can help the people and protect 

the natural environment of West Virginia and our nation. If confirmed by the Senate, I look forward 

to Working with Senator Manchin and his colleague Senator Capito as we find the right balance 

that works best for the people and the environment of their very special state." 

Below Is a statement from Senator Manchin: 

"Attorney General Pruitt and I had a very productive conversation to~ay about his plans for the 

Environmental Protection Agency and ways we can work together. We both come from energy 

producing states and have a great deal in common. He committed to visiting West Virginia and 

working with me on some of the clean water challenges that we have experienced in recent years 

In cities like Vienna, Parkersburg and Charleston. I believe !he Attorney General has the right 

experience for the position and look forward to his confirmation process: 

A photo of Senator Manchin and Mr. Pruitt is below. 
678 

All media requests should be directed Ul Media@ptt.gov 
679 

Th•s ama11 was sent to tcama@!hell!!!.com 

why did 1 get this? unaub!l91b& lrom this lis! update subsqr!Dijpo proferences 

Tr"'"P for Antt>rl~.a. Inc. · 1800 F St NW ·Washington. OC 20006 ·USA 
680 

National Associat1oo of Hom a BuDden 

i201 1!11hStreet NW 

Wmlh!ng!on. DC 20005 

T BOO 3G8 524? 

r 202266&~00 

January 12,2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

United States Senate 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso: 

Government Affairs 

Jemes W Tobin Jil 

E)l,ecutive Vice Prestdant & Ch1ef LobbViSt 

Government A"alrs and Commt.mn:::ations GrOup 

On behalf of the 140,000 members of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), 

1 am wriUng to express NAHB's strong support for the nominallon of General Scott Pruitt to be the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We believe that 

General Pruitt will restore common sense to the regulatory process by ensuring that 

federal regulations are based on sound science, respecting states' rights, and balancing 

the economic impact they will have on small businesse;. 

Every day, our nation's horne builders must work to understand and comply with oomplex 

regulatory requirements. Environmental regulations such as the "waters of the us· rule, 

the Clean Power Plant Rule, and the Lead: Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule all 

Impose unnecessary burdens on NAHB members. The development of these regulations 

have lacked transparency, not been based on sound science, and the input from smaD 

business entities was largely Ignored. In recent years, the agency has also failed to 

respect the formal rulemaking process and bypassed many ot the safeguards designed 

to ensure a fair and balanced rulemaklng. 

It is difficult for home builders to keep up with the national demand for housing under the 

cumsnt regulatory regime. Regulations account for up to 26% of the price of a singlefamily home. These costs are passed on to homeowners, negatively impacting housing 

affordability, which can often posiUon American families further flWay from the dream of 

homeownership. We need practical regulations that strike a balance between protecting 

our environment and allowing our businesses to thrive. 

General Pruitt has a long history of fighting many of these onerous regulations, and we 

are oorrHdent that he has the ability to guide the EPA towards mora sensible actions. We 

also believe that he will respect the proper rulemaking process and provide transparency 

With any regulation action. We strongly believe that the burdens that home builders face 

will be eased under General Pruitt's leadership. 

For these reasons, we respectfully urge members of the Senate Environment and Public 

Works Committee to support General Scott Pruitt's nomination. Thank. you for 

considering our views. 

Sincerely, qcr1! 

James W. Tobin Ill 
681 

For Immediate Release 

Scientists, Economists, Ethicists, other Scholars 

Support EPA Administrator Nominee Scott Pruitt 

Burke, VA, January 16, 2017-The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation today released an Open 

Letter to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee supporting the nomination of Oklahoma 

Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt's confimurtion 

hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, January 18,2017. 

"Some environmental activists are determined to pR:vent Mr. Pruitt's confirmation, painting him as a 'science 

denier' or a 'climate"'hange denier'," said Cornwall Alliance Founder and National Spokesman Dr. E. Calvin Beisner. "'He is neither. He's a solid, common-sense attorney general who will bring much-needed reform to the 

EPA." 

Signed by 130 evangelical, mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Jewish scientists, economists, legal 

scholars, policy experts, and religious leaders, and over 230 other citizens to date, the Open Letter says that as 

Oklahoma Attorney General, Mr. Pruitt has demonstrated his legal expertise in successful litigation to require 

corporations--including the energy corporations so prominent in his state's economy-to abide by 

environmental laws and regulations. He has publicly eKpresscd his conviction that the EPA's role is not to 

create law through regulations that exceed the scope of enabling legislation but to implement the intent of that legislation. His Christian faith underlies his commitment to protecting human health and life through pollution 

controls firmly based in sound science and cost/benefit analysis. 

The Open Letter counters some radical environmentalists and religious activists who oppose Mr. Pruitt because 

he questions exaggerated fears ofhuman·induced global warming-fears based on global climate computer 

models not validated by the empirical evidence crucial to genuine science-<>r their antipathy to the 

development of the abundant, reliable, affordable energy indispensable to lifting and keeping whole societies 

out of poverty and the disease and premature death that invariably accompany it. 

Signers therefore urge Pruitt's confirmation. 

"Those who signed our Open Letter include climate scientists, physicists, geologists, ecologists, environmental 

and developmental economists, theologians, philosophers, religious leaders, and legal scholars," Beisner says. 

"We think that's important because climate and energy policy must be addressed in light of insights rrom all 

these fields of expertise. Science is important, but it can only tell us what is, and climate scientists on all sides acknowledge myriad major uncertainties aboul the magnitude and consequences of human influence on global climate. It cannot tell us what should be. For that, you need economics and ethics." 

Some of the 130 expert signers include: 

William L. Anderson, Ph.D. (Economics), Pro lessor of Eccncmic~ Frostburg State University, Frostburg, MD 

James A. Borland, (Th.D.), Theology, Profi:ssor of 

Theology, Liberty University. Lynchburg, VA 

Roger L. Burtner, Ph.D. (Geology), furrner National 

Scteuc:c foundation Pellow: former Adjunct Professor. 

Case Western Reserve University; Principal, Remote 

Sensing Explonltion, Fullerton CA 

Neil L. Frank, Pll.D. (Meteorology). former Director, 

National Hurricane Center ( 1974-1987), Chief 

Meteorologist, KHOU-TV Houston {1987-2008) 

Bruce L. Gordon. Ph.D. (History and Philooophy of 

Science); Associate Professor, History and Philosophy 

of Science, Houston Blljltisl Univemty, Senior Fellow, 

Center for Science and Curture, Discovery (nstitu~ 

Richmond,TX 

William Happer, Ph.D., C)'l'us Fou Brackett Professor 

of Physics, Emeritus. Princeton UniYC:r3ityt Printcton, 

NJ 

David Legates, Ph.D. (CiimDiology), Pn>fossor of 

Climatology and Geography, University of Delaware 
682 

RichardS. Lindzcn. Ph.D. (Applied Mathemntics), 

Alflcd P. Slo.'V! Professor of Atmospheric Sciences 

Emeritus, MIT 

Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D. (Atmo&pheric Science}, 

Professor, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 

Matthew Malkan, Ph.D. (Astrophysics), Profi:sS<>r of 

Phy•ics & A!tronomy, University of California at Lo1i 

Angeles (UCLA.), Los Angelos, CA 

Cralg Vincent Mitchel!, Ph.D. (Philosopby/Ethics), 

Associate Professor of Philosophy, Pol~ics and 

Eronomics, Cri•wel! College, Dall .. , TX 

Everett Pipet', Ph.D., P.uidenl, Oklahoma Wesleyan 

University, Bartlesville, OK 

Kelly Shackelfurd, J.D. (Law}. President and CEO, 

fint Liberty Institute, Plono, TX 

Willie Soon, Ph.D. (Aerospace Engineering), 

independent scientist, Cambridge, MA 

Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. (Meteorology), Prirt<:ipal 

Research Scientist, Earth System Science Cen\er, 

University of Alabama, Huntsville, AL, and Lead 

Scientist, NASA Aqua AMSR-3 Satell~e Remote 

Sensing Progrnm 

Timolby D. Tcnell, Ph.D. (Environmental Regulatory 

Economics), Associate Professor, Wolfurd College, 

Spartanburg. SC 

C. Joseph Touhill, Ph.D. (Environmental Enginuring), 

P.E., DEE, F. AIC'hE, F.ASCE, President, Touhill 

Technology Management, Jamison, PA 

Jnmes A. Wanliss, Ph.D. (Phyai<:s), Professor of 

Physics, Presbyterian College, Clinton, SC 

Anthony Watts, American Moteorologi<:al Socielycenif~ed television and radio meteorologist (retired), 

owner of WattsUpwithTh.1t.com. Chico, CA 

David F. Wells, Ph.D (Theology), Distinguished 

Researcll Prof ... or, Oordon·Conwell Thoological 

Seminary, South HamlHon, MA 

The Open Letter and a list of all !30 expert signers is attached. The letter is online at 

http:l/comwallalliance.org/landmark.-documentslopen-letter-supoorting.scott-pruitt-for-epaadministrator/. 

##### 

Media contact: Megan Toombs, Director of Communications, Megnn@ComwallA!Iiance.org, 703·569-4653 
683 

QI:nngr.ess nf tire 31tnit:ell §taus 

masl1ingtnn, ilC! 2D515 

The Honorable Mitch McConnell 

Senate Majority Leader 

317 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washingtoo,D.C. 20510 

January 10,2017 

The Honorable Charles Sclnnner 

Senate Minority Leader 

322 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator McConnell und Senator Schumer, 

We write to express our steadfast support for President-elect Trump's nominee for Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, IU1d to urge his swift 

confirmation by the Senate. 

Scott Pruitt is an accomplished leader in the state of Oklahoma. where be has earned respect and 

admiration from both sides of the wle for his understanding of constitutional law and the role federal 

regulatioru; ought to play in our nation's governmenl 

As Administrator of the EPA, Mr. Pruitt will serve America well by protecting our citizens' oir and 

water through lawful and commonsense regulations that follow congressional intent, fUlfilling the 

original role of the agency. In doing so, he will ensure that the federal government does nol propose 

rules with little to no health or environmental benefit at the cost of middle-class jobs and economic 

growth. 

Mr. Pruitt has considerable experience working on environmental nnd regulatory issues, and we have no 

doubt that he will bring a principled, balanced perspective to the EPA. We are proud ofhis service to 

our state, and we are confident he will do a supetb job serving our nation and our citi:zens in this new 

role. 

Again, we urge Mr. Pruitt's swift confirmation so he can get ID wo!k protecting human health and the 

environment. The Oklahoma delegation is more than happy to meet with you, or members of the 

appropriate committees, to further discuss his confinnation. Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

~~Ertk~~- tJ? 

Frank D. Lucas Tom Cole 

Ja~M';t4. 1C/..I<!Mt'.ie:.Cm~be!:!r::!:o(if_Co-~ d%4 

Steve Russell 

Member of Congress 
684 

AMERICA:>~ rAR.\f Bt.'REAU FEDERATION" 

BOO '"'""""""A"'. SW I S.JHI! 1000\'1 I Woenlnglon. DC 2002<1 

January 4, 20 17 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6176 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6175 

Dear Senator Barrasso and Senator Carper: 

pll. 202.4fl!!.31ioo 

, <!)2.405.36~ 

W\IIIW.IIJ.Ofg 

The American Farm Bureau Federation strongly supports the nomination of Scott Pruitt as 

Administrator ofthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and urges you to vote in 

favor of his confinnation. 

Scott Pr1.1itt is an ideal nominee for EPA Administrator for many reasons. but his nomination 

should command respect from Senators for one reason above all: he has profound respect for the 

laws written by Congress. In contesting EPA's 'waters of the US' (WOTUS) rule, Mr. Pruitt is 

in fact defending the bipartisan view of Congress that the agency has illegally overstepped its 

bounds and ignored the U.S. Supreme Court. Similarly, in the stance he has taken on the Clean 

Power Plan, he is defending Congress: in 2009, the Senate failed even to take up for debate the 

cap-and-trade plan narrowly approved by the House. Mr. Pruitt very soundly takes the view that 

Congress has not authorized the sweeping attempt by EPA to coerce action by the states. 

No one cares more about the responsible stewardship of our land, air, and water than American 

farmers and ranchers. Our livelihoods depend on it. In recent years, fanners and ranchers have 

suffered under burdensome, unnecessary and, too often, unlawful federal regulations 

promulgated by the EPA. We desperately need an administrator who understands the challenges 

our fwmers and ranchers face in producing safe, wholesome and affordable food for our nation 

and the world. 

Some activists are attempting to characterize this as a debate over environmental goals. Nothing 

could be further from the truth. It is about respect for the law and for an agency that will live 

within the statutory programs Congress has authorized. AFBF supports Scott Pruitt for EPA 

administrator because he will restore respect for the law and enforce it fairly. Further, he 

understands how and when federal power should be exercised. We support him because he has 
685 

demonstrated a keen understanding of the devastating economic implications of federal 

overreach. 

Scott Pruitt will put the EPA back on track and ensure that federal decisions are based on sound 

science, not politics. He will produce a fair regulatory environment that respects the rule of law. 

We urge his continnation. 

Sincerely, 

/ptY. ~_juJl 

Zippy Duvall 

Pre5ident 
686 

January 13, 2017 

The Honorable John A. Barrasso 

Chainnwt 

U.S .. Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

41 0 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

Dear Senators Barrasso and CBiper: 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Minority Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Sc:onte Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

The Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) requests your support for Scott Pruitt 

as Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection (EPA). 

SEMA represents the $39 billion specialty automotive aftennarkct industry and is made up of 

over 6,600 mostly small businesses nationwide that manufacture, distribute and retail specialty 

parts and accessories for vehicles. The industry produces performance, restoration and styling 

enhancement parts for usc on passenger cars and trucks, collector vehicles, racecars and offhighway vehicles. 

As Oklahoma's Attorney General, Mr. Pruitt has sought a balanced approach to protecting the 

environment that is consistent with economic realities. He has taken on regulatory overreach 

while demonstrating restraint and an understanding that the law both empowers and llmits 

government. We belie\le Mr. Pruitt would belp affinn a regulatory approach that is reasoned, 

concise and enforceable. 

For decades, SEMA has bad great success in working with the EPA to help craft industry 

regulations that achieve clean air goals. Nevertheless, there have been several occasions 

when there has been a difference of opinion on how the law is applied. In 2015, and counter 

to the intent of the Clean Air Act, the EPA issued a proposed rule stating that it is illegal to 

transform a motor vehicle into 11 race vehicle used exclusively in competition. While the 

EPA withdrew the problematic language from the fmal rulemaking last year, the agency still 

maintains the position tbnt such conversions are unlawful. 

On behalf of the industry and consumer community we represent, SEMA respectfully urges 

the Committee to support the nomination of Mr. Pruitt to be the next EPA Administrator. 

We believe that Mr. Pruitt's experience as an executive and consistency in carrying out his 

duties as Attorney General of Oklahoma make him uniquely qualified to lead the ageilcy 

into the future. 

Specialty Equipment M~rket Associ~tion {SEMA) 

1317 F Street, NW; Suite 500; Washington, DC 20004 

Telephone: 202/783-6007; Fax: 20.21783-6024 
687 

2 

Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me if you have any 

questions. 

Sincerely, 

cc: Members of the U.S. Senate Environment 

and Public Works Committee 
688 

F~rtilizer Institute 

Nourish, Replenish, <;row 

January 17, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6176 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 205 I 0-6175 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

I am writing to you on behalf of the members ofThe FertHizer Institute (TFI) to strongly endorse 

!he nomination of Scott Pruitt as Administrator of !he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). Attorney General Pruitt's vast experience in both the public and private sectors makes 

him well qualified for this important position. 

TFI represents the nation's fertilizer industry including producers, importers, retailers, 

wholesalers and companies that provide services to the fertilizer industry. The U.S. fertilizer 

industry is one of the world's largest. The United States is the fourth-largest producer of 

nitrogen-based fertilizers in the world and the second largest producer of phosphate. The U.S. 

fertilizer industry generates more than $139 billion in economic benefit and provides 80,099 

direct jobs and 372.603 indirect jobs for a total of more than 452,702 U.S. jobs. 

TFI's members are committed to enhancing their environmental stewardship efforts, as 

evidenced by the voluntary program cteated by the industry called the 4R Nutrient Stewardship 

Program. 4R Nutrient Stewardship is a framework designed to help farmers achieve cropping 

system goals, such as increased production, increased farmer profitability, enhanced 

environmental protection and improved sustainability. The success ofthis program is highly 

dependent on partnerships between fanners, agricultural retailers, federal, state and local 

governments and environmental organb:ations all working together with a shared goal of 

ensuring that fertilizer is applied by using the Right Source at the Right Rate at the Right Time 

and in the Right Place. 

Mr. Pruitt can sliest, water quality and other long-term environmental challenges, are most 

effectively addressed by federal and state governments via the "cooperative federalism" 

partnership model as embodied in the Clean Water Act Few individuals understand the 
689 

2 

importance of this model like Mr. Pruitt. He has been a consistent advocate for ensuring the 

appropriate balance between the need for federal regulations and the sovereignty of states. 

Mr. Pruitt is also mindful tnat the benefits of regulatory actions must outweigh their costs. He 

has demonstrated a commitment to this ideal and we believe he will work to ensure its reality as 

the EPA Administrator. 

TFI and its members similarly support common-sense regulations based on peer-reviewed sound 

science. Working in partnership with all stakeholders, we believe Mr. Pruitt will ensure that 

American agriculture is able to continue growing the food, fitel and fiber to feed the world. At 

the same time, we will work to ensure that our precious natural resources are safeguarded for 

generations to come. 

For the aforementioned reasons, we strongly support Attorney General Pruitt to be the 

Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and we urge your support of his 

confirmation. 

Sincerely, 

Chris Jahn 

President 

The Fertitizer Institute 

CC: Members of the United States Senate 
690 

r···~.......... I i BEEF ! National Cattlemen's 

'\, .. ,,"·'u;~~·. Beet Association 

January 17, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on EnviroDment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6176 

The HonorabJe Thomas Carper 

Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Se1tate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6176 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The Notional Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) urges you to vote in favor of 

confirmation of Scott Pruitt as Administrator of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). NCBA is a trade association thai represents U.S. cattle producers, with more than 

30,000 direct members. Through state affiliates NCBA represents 175,000 of America's 

fanners and ranchers who provide a significant portion of the nation's food supply. 

As Oklahoma's Attorney General, Mr. Pruitt led the fight to bring common sense back to 

environmental regulation and he was an unrivaled defender of private property rights. In fact, 

in 2015 the Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association honored Mr. Pruitt with its Distinguished 

Service Award for his dedication to those principles. likewise, cattle producers across the 

country have rallied in support of Mr. Pruitt's nomination to be the next EPA Administrator, 

as memorialized in the enclosed letter. His legal background and experience as Attorney 

General ensures the EPA will follow the rule of the law while fulfilling its important mission 

of protecting human health and the environment. Agency decisions grounded in science, 

constrained by the law and Congress will achieve long-lasting success. 

Mr. Pruitt brings with him a11 opportunity to reinvigorate the cooperative federalism approach 

that is embodied in our nation's environmental statutes- namely that States are the primary 

enforcers and implementers of environmental programs while the federal government retains a 

backstop and support role- as mandated by Congress. In recent years we have seen a shift 

away from the approach mandated by Congress and movement toward a policy of federal 

usurpation of state programs through increasingly burdensome regulation and enforcement. 

The Senate can restore the balance by confirming Mr. Pntitt. 

Cattle producers want a healthy environment and are personally invested in keeping the land, 

water, and air clean for their children and grandchildren. Agriculture cannot be viewed merely 

as a regulatory target when improvements can be realized by treating farmers and ranchers as 

partners. Outgoing Administrator McCarthy stated that her top regret was failing to connect 

with rural America. With Pruitt at the helm, NCBA is confident that the EPA can el{cel at its 

mission and foster an agency culture that engages rural Americans as partners in our nation's 

effort to protect the environment. 
691 

""~rely,~ 

'!l," President 

cc: U.S. Senate 

2 
692 

'.i.,,;;;,;.iiLHJ:" ~ .. .:f.:i.iu:i" 

January 13, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

,,LLIANt:H 

u.s. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

Western Energy Alliance strongly supports the confirmation of Attorney General Scott 

Pruitt as Environmental Protection Agency [EPA) Administrator. His willingness to stand for 

the rule of law In regulatory actions makes him the right person to implement PresidentElect Trump's agenda of creating jobs while refocusing EPA on real environmental 

protection of air and water. 

Western Energy Alliance represents over 300 companies engaged In all aspects of 

environmentally responsible exploration and production of oil and natural gas In the West. 

Alliance members are independents, the maJority of which are small businesses with an 

average of fifteen employees. 

The oil and natural gas Industry adopted an environmental ethic decades ago, and 

protecting the environment is a primary consideration for all activities that potentially may 

have an impact. The success ofthe environmental movement In Inculcating that ethic 

throughout our society has not lead to a situation of coming together and working 

constructively toward further environmental improvements, however. Rather, the 

environmental lobby now opposing AG Pruitt's confirmation has become concerned with 

imposing further federal conttol and dominance over all aspects of American life and the 

econorriy, not with real environmental protection. The overregulation resulting from this 

agenda Is not better protecting our environment, but rather reorienting our government 

away from cooperative federaliSm. AG Pruitt has taken a stand not against the 

environment, as his opponent~ would have you believe, but rather against regulatory 

overreach that not only kills jobs and economic prosperity but perversely harms the 

environment and public health. EPA best protects the environment when it worl<s 

cooperatively with states and actually implements the laws passed by Congress, not when 

it wastes effort exerting control over the economy and Ignoring real environmental 

problems. 

1 Tlf· l>h•'llnan St., Ste 270() Den vet; CO 80203 

10:wn.n<JA'/ ·. 303.893.070!) , W$temEnergyAllianco.oro 
693 

After years of fixation on miniscule environmental Improvements a hundred years In tile 

future while ignoring real environmental degradation today In places like Flint, or actually 

causing environmental disaster wltll the Gold King mine, EPA needs to be refocused back 

to Its core mission of protecting air and water. AG Pruitt understands that EPA best 

protects the environment not when It conjures new powers for Itself using overly 

expansive interpretations of federal authority, but when It actually Implements already 

strict laws like the Clean Air Act and the Cle~m Water Act. 

Many studies have shown that those with economic means score better on just about 

every health outcome than those without. From nations and states to cities and 

neighborhoods on down to Individual citizens, tho.se with financial means do the most to 

protect the environment. Public health and the environment are best served by a strong, 

vibrant economy and a fully employed workforce, not by overarching regulations that 

expand federal power and clloke off job creation. When AG Pruitt has taken a stand 

against unlawful expansion offederal authority, he has done so not In opposition to the 

environment, but in support of it. 

The Waters of the u.s. rule Is one such example. The rule as flnallzed would simply expand 

federal control beyond navigable waters, as Congress intended, to nearly every piece of 

dry land upon which water may flow. Diluting federal resources away from real 

environmental degradation such as at Superfund sites to permitting standard farming 

activities on dry land does nothing to protect water, but does harm rural economies. 

likewise, AG Pruitt has taken a stand against an oz.one standard Imposed without full 

consideration of science. It would put vast areas of the country Into nonattainment with 

concomitant negative economic Impacts but without commensurate enVIronmental 

benefit. Rather than spending resources helping states with truly bad air quality lllce 

California clean it up, EPA would be expending resources trying to achieve marginal 

Improvements in ozone reduction In areas with dean air. 

AG Pruitt will reorient EPA back to an agency that respects the role of law and works 

constructively with states to protect air and water quality. Restoring the proper federalism 

balance with the states will result in better environmental protection without squelching 

economic opportunity. Western Energy Alliance urges swift confirmation. 

Sincerely, 

Kathleen M. Sgamma 

President 

WESTERN ENERGY ALLIANCE 
694 

ATTORNEYS GENERAL IN SUPPORT OF PRUITT 

24 Attorneys General 

In A Letter To Sens. John Barrasso (R-WY) And Tom Carper (D·DE), 24 Republican 

Attorneys General Wrote That Pruitt "Exemplifies" The "Knowledge, Experience, And 

Principles To Work With Our States" At EPA.« As the attorneys general of our respective 

states, we write to express our unqualified support for our colleague and the Attorney General of 

Oklahoma, E. Scott Pruitt, as Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. As 

attorneys general, we understand the need to work collaboratively to address threats to our 

environment that cross state lines, as well as the importance of a federal counterpart in the EPA 

Administrator who possesses the knowledge, experience, and principles to work with our states to 

address issues affecting our environment. We believe that no one exemplifies these qualities more 

than Scott Pruitt., (State or Alabmna OffiCe Of'nte AttOrney Gononr.l, ,.1\Gl( SUllfY"t I'J"llitt,"t/'1/17) 

• The Attorneys General Wrote That Pruitt "Wholeheartedly Believes In A Strong'' 

EPA. "When our nation is confronted with issues affecting the environment that are not covered 

by a particular statute, Scott will come to Congress for a solution, rather than inventing power for 

his agency. He wholeheartedly believes in a strong Environmental Protection Agency that carries 

out its proper duties, providing a backstop to state and local regulators as they develop 

environmental regulations suited to the needs of their own communities.» (stat• or Alabama Offlec Of Tho 

Attomey General, "1\0~ ~~~1'!'''1'1 1

1nd•r ," I/4/17) 

Fonner Attorney General Mike Turpen (D-OK) 

Former Democratic Attorney General Of Oklahoma, Mike Turpen Said That Scott .Pruitt 

"Will Be A Thoughtful Leader Of The EPA, And One Capable Of Striking The Balance 

Between Protecting The Environment And Our Economy." "As a Democrat, I take seriously 

the threats to our environment, and I believe we must work to address issues such as pollution, 

climate change, and ensuring clean air and water. Scott Pruitt's background in constitutional law, 

combined with a nuanced understanding of how environmental regulations affect the economy, mean that he will be a thoughtful leader of the EPA, and one capable of sttiking the balance between 

protecting the environment and our economy." (Mike Turpen, ".Pruitt Is A Balanced Selection For 

EPA Chief, [Jtsicf.e.J!<wr<:r;s, 12/12/16) 

• Mike Turpen: "I Am Convinced Scott Pruitt Will Work To Protect Our Natural 

Habitats, Reserves, And Resources." "I am convinced Scott Pruitt will work to protect 

our natural habitats, reserves, and resources." {M!IcoTh•·pen, 'Pruitt Is A &lanood Sclett!on Foc EPACideC, ;,,,;1t,• Smft'N!.~ 12/l'Z/16) 

Attmney General Herbert H. Slatery III (TN) 

Tennessee Attorney Genet•alrecently sa1d that "Here's why I think General Pruitt is a 

good pick: He is a lawyer, a lawyer who understands the Constitution, in particuhtl' the 

limitations placed on the exct:utive branch and its agencies." 

Slaterly explained that Tennessee has joined Oklahoma in several lawsuits challenging 

broad, overreaching actions by federal agencies: "We do not join these cases lightly, to 'make 

a statement', or for some political motivation. We do it to protect the State of Tennessee, its citizens 

and its sovereign right to govern." 

• Herbert Slaterly: "As EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt will bring a reasoned and balanced 

approach back to the agency. He is a constitutional conservative. He has reached across the 

aisle to pass meaningful regulations to protect Oklahoma waters and has aggressively pursued 
695 

litigation against polluters." (Herbert H. Slaterly III, "Scott Pruitt's a good pick for EPA 

administrator," 1'h~ .. :f"!1!1£~E~. Ol/12/17) 

Atto17tey Genm•al Patrick Morrisey (R-lVV) 

In A Recent Radio Interview West Virginia Attoi'Dcy General Patrick Morrisey 

Defended Scott Pruitt, Saying "Pruitt Is In Favol' Of Clean Air And Clean Water." "'Some 

of the attacks that have been launched against him are just rubbi.sh,' Morrisey said, noting that he 

knows Pruitt i.s in favor of clean air and clean water." (lla.,.,•· Nokllg. "Pruitt Ally Defuuds'trum!>'• BPA Pl<l From 'Rubbish' 

Attocb,"'ih< /iilt la/11/16) 

Morrisey Praised Scott Pt·uitt As A "Good Manager" Who Can "Bring Discipline To The 

Bureaucrats" At The EPA. "Morrisey praised Pruitt as a good manager who can 'bring discipline 

to the bureaucrats.' The West Virginia attorney general also praised the rest of the nascent Trump 

administration, saying 'people are pretty excited' that the president-elect is looking to shake things up 

after eight years of President Obama." (HarporNeidig. "Pruitt Ally Dd~.Ja 'frump's EPA Plck ••~m 'Robbish'.Atmck•." 11I<lliU. 

HJ./tt/t6) 

Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge 

Attoi'Dey General Leslie Rutledge (R·AR) Said Pruitt Is "Just The Person" To Rein In 

'Ibe "EXcesses" Of The EPA. "It i.s incredibly important to the success of the EPA's primary 

mission that the agency regains the bipartisan and widespread respect it once had. And this can only 

be accomplished by reigning in the significant and lawless excesses of the agency. Attorney General 

Pruitt is just the person to accomplish tl1is feat. His knowledge of the limitations placed on the EPA by 

statutes and by the U.S. Constitution is exhaustive, as is his understanding of the importaoce of 

working with as opposed to against state agencies in areas of regulatory overlap. • (A!torney Genom! Leslie 

Rutledge, ~ Mkansas Artnmcy General: Why Scott Pruitt ts The Right Cholcc For The EPA,,. Op--l!d, Fox- N,•ws. 12/15/16) 

Attorney Gmleral Tim Fox (R-MT) 

Attorney General Tim Fo::o:, Of Montana, Wrote Pruitt Stood Up "For The Rights Of His 

State" Against The EPA. "Under federal law, the states have a significant role to play in the realm 

of environmental protection. Throughout President Obama's tenure in office, the EPA regularly 

ignored congressional prescription of states' environmental protection role. Legal challenges to 

unlawful regulations such as Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) and the so called 'Clean Power Plan' are 

examples of General Pruitt standing up for the rights of his state when the EPA adopted public policy 

that circumvented the proper process . .!! (T1m Fox, "Ztnke, Pntitt &th Dcst'!rvc Swift Confirmation," op~&d •. tJJI~J'!'.I(Jitllfti/u Chn.mid<·, 

•/t/17) 

Fox Also Said Prulll Has A "High Regard For The Rule Of Law In Aineriea." 

"Congressman Zinke's and General Pruitt's high regard for the mle of law in America is invaluable. 

l call on Sen. Daines, Sen. Tester and the rest of the U.S. Senate to support swift confirmation of 

both men to their new positions, as our nation is best served if they are allowed to get to work as 

soon as possible. A vote against confirmation i.s a vote against Montana." rnm Fox, "Z;nke, Pruitt Both o..erve SwirtConftrmqti(]n,• Op-Ed, IJo .. J>:,·ltltaif!J ( 'hmm'df', t/t/t?) 

Ai"torney General Alan Wilson (R-SC) 

Attorney General Alan Wilson (R-SC) Wrote That Pruitt "Is Deeply Respected In 

Oklahoma And Among His Colleagues Nationwide." "Scott Pruitt is deeply respected in 

Old ahoma and among his colleagues nationwide for his integrity, intellect and knowledge of 

constitutional law. It is exactly these qualities that are necessary to rein in an out-of-control EPA and 

focus it on its original mission of working with states and at the direction of Congress to protect our 

air, water and land. Sadly, the EPA has become an agency synonymous with ineffective policies that 

stall om energy and manufacturing production and delay much-needed job growth. Scott Pruitt 

knows the EPA has a critical role to play in ensuring we all benefit from a cleaner environment." (Ahm 

Wilson, "Smtt Pruitt And The End OfBPA Ov~:rreach,,. "t'/11." !1(qk, t/2/l?) 
696 

Attm·ney General-Elect Curtis Hill (R-IN) 

Attorney General-Elect Curtis Bill (R-IN) Wrote Pruitt "Has Earned National 

Recognition For His Expet·tise In Constitutional Law." "Scott Pruitt has earned national 

recognition for his expertise in constitutional law, the federal regulatory system and his dogged 

determination in taking on tough fights on behalf ofbis constituents. One example that impacted us 

here in Indiana was General Pruitt's work to successfully block the EPA's attempts to harass 

America's farmers and ranchers by redefining what the term 'navigable' water means under the Clean 

Water Act. He also stood up to the Obama Administration's unconstitutional executive orders, like 

those that led the War on Coal." (Curtis Hill, 'Fisskpcrint P•ultt Hns Toughn .... , !lxport!seTo Control EPA,' Op-l!<l, )Hbun·· ~Wr. 

12/'20/16) 

More From Blll: Pruitt "Took On The Big Oil Companies." "While federalism and the rule 

of law will always be his guiding star; General Pruitt has also demonstrated a commitment to 

unleashing an energy revolution in this country and doing so in a way that protects our natural 

resources, ensuring clean air and clean water .... We can balance that policy while ensuring that 

our environment is protected. In Oklahoma, General Pruitt took on the big oil companies when he 

found that they knowingly double-dipped by collecting reimbursements for corrective action 

environmental costs for sites they polluted. • (Cur& Hill, "l'l.,hpoint Pruitt HosTo\lgbness, E><pertlseToControJ EPA,' OpEd. Tdhmw·.'i'ittr, J2/ao/t6) 

And More From Hill: Pruitt "Will Be The Regulatot'Y Watchdog We Have Long 

Needed." "So, while the far left will try to sully his reputation, Republicans and even moderate 

Democrats will support General Pruitt in his confirmation, confident that he will succeed in his 

mission to protect the environment while also protecting the rights of Americans and the rule of 

law. Too often people go to Washington trying to advance their own agenda and become just 

another member of the swamp. I am thrilled because I know that General Pruitt will do just the 

opposite. He will be the regulatory watchdog we have long needed." (Curti• Hill, "J~ashpoint: Ptuitt Has 

TOlJl'hnesa, ExportlseTo Control BPA, .. Op--Ed, •t'rflnmr·SUu·,t2/'I.O/l6) 

Fonner Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R~ VA) 

Former Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli Said Of Pruitt: "He Doesn't Flap In The Wind." 

"Ken Cuccinel!i, former attorney general of Virginia, who worked with Pruitt in the past, said, 'Even 

opponents, if they get to work with him, will find they will be treated well and respectfully no matter 

how strongly opinions are felt on either side. He doesn't flap in the wind, but he does incorporate 

what people Say to him~~n (Ucnjpmin Stoi'T'OW' snd Niinn Heikkln13n, ''frump's EPA Pick Left Okla. Water Pollution Case Ha.uging," f;t'U~ 

I'lthlL~hitJlb 1/3/17) 
697 

Schuette: Want to stop EPA overreach? 

As 1he confirmation process for the members of Preskietnt-akfct Oonald Trump's. c;ablnet maves. fofward, the 

positive dil'e<rtio.n of our new cabmet Is taking ahape. Trump l'les commlfted to draining the swamp and wm Cl'Ull\ge and reform the way IJ')vemment Is d~mt~ for the better. 

When Trump .named Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruilt .as hfs pick to run the EnviroM'16nlal Protflction 

Agency, he selected it hfghl'y quali-fied leader who l& eommlttad to restoring the proper bafa~ between tha 

power of lhe states and federal QPv.efnment t!'l protect our anvironment. 

As the head of the tPA, PrulttwVI reverse thi$trendcfbrpii1$aing Co119ress and ignoringthewm ofthepeopte 

2nd tr.e courts and mtt.lm the agt:!ney to its orlglnpl goal: k&ll'Pinl:l our air dean and our water safe. 

Pn.tltt has boen a strong VQk;e for stopping !he out-of--control Obama-era EPA .regulations. tttat have destroyetJ mtl!lons of American jobs and cost 

consurN!IfS ttwirhard eamed doUarJS. 

Pruitt am! I have stood together on numerous !mportal'lten~ron:rnmtaf lss.ues. Ouring the Obama admlots4ratloo, !he EPA fre.Quen!ly overstepped ft9. 

boundaries, igooring each state's energy rasoun:es and forcing a naticnalized energy agerlda. 

Under the Obama. sdmlntstratio"; the EPA hee attempted to dassffy even the smaJfee.tbOdyofwatet as abfe to ~reg!Aatadby tho EPA, Including ponds 

In the middle ot ~ farm lleld, as part of 1tm WaferS of the Un«eo StatM. Rul&. They lgMred !he need to examine tffl! energy needs and a01.m;es cf speclfte 

statea with the Clean Power Pmn. Cklser to hOme, in MIChigan v. EPA. the U.S~ Supreme Court said that the EPA must consider cosltl and that It 

int8fj.'lreted tha CJe:m Air Ar;t unreasonllb{y wtlen Jt determinea ltlat it did not rteild to consktef costs when n implemented regulatlcn. 

Failure to take Into at(:OUMt thet cost of r.egufatfon was a ~ooccurring theme during tha Obam-a adrnlnl&tr3tlon. The EPA also tried to tegulate ma'IN.M In 

attempt to flnd a prot.Jlern wttere there \$n't one. The of~ natlmll gas indu~ry has made a po{nt to reduce-methane elllfs$o!'!-s on thefr·own. Wtly1 

eeeause the;' l\ave a rmaooallnecntlve lt1 capture and seH the met-haoo gas produced through drilling. 

Imagine the cost.s of tho rogulatory environment created by the Obama EPA on the average M!ciligan resident, the increased c05t of food and start~g $ 

bUSiness. The era of a iob killing EPA wih s~1Jn be Qver. 

We stoOO together, n()t against the environment, but aga&w.t the wasteful spending and hatmfi.ll regulaHon pi.!t forth by bureaucrats tn Washington. 

With Pruttt etthelle!m of1he EPA, no,mllrfl!Willw~ sGetha agencyigt,loflng the Jaws passed by congtesa: orruflngshanded downbylhe U.S. Supreme 

Court cast aside. 

Pruitt wWI protect cur en\lironmaflt whtle ensuring that you and 1 can s4ID afford to tum the lights on and rm our cars up with gas. 

f enct:~urage the u.s. Sert~te- and Michigan'-&. senators -to ttlre Scott Pruitt by 00l'1firmtog him as the admtnlstrator of tOO EPA. 

Read or Slla«:Jo this $tOry: http:J!detne.wsf210i<Fp6 

(t.· chrome 
698 

Scott Pruitt's a good pick for EPA administrator 

The seiecfton of Qklahorrul Attorney Gen&rEIS Seotl Pruitt to serve a& Environmental Proteclion Agency 

admlni&lratcr n. bofd. n !s .j!bo encourag:lng. 

It has attracted a lot of no-tice and critid!im, the Jii!Je and cry Is loud. ''He does. net believe in dimaie char19e; he 

does not be.Ueve In the EPA'smlasion; he favors the oil and gas lndWiltry.~! de notthir$.: he flt& any of!Mse 

d~!$CiiptiOO$. 

Here's why 1 think General Protttlsa QQOdpk:k:He 13 a law~r. a fawyerwhO understands the Co~, in 

particular tha l!mltatlon::;; placed on the executhte branch and its agende-s. Our Office has wor1red with Geneml 

Pruttl: and other attorneys general Qfl a numberqflssues ran.gtng from irhmigratlon to edtJcaUcn to the 

E'nvifq.nment to lleakh care. 

\1'\Jf; have joined scwrallawsutts chatlenglng broad, werroadlfug actfons by federalagendes. We d(l not join 

these C&$ea lightly, to "ttt aka. a ~S-la:temant", or for SQme pont! cal mollvatlon, VVe do it to prote-ct the State of 

l erm:essee, h.s citizens and Hs: soverel.gn rtghl to govem. 

My ruofiedlon is that Ganwat Prultt was, a le-ader in bringing a numtror of these cases. Here Is M1 ekample: One case chaHengetl an ei(QQJf.ille diredive, 

a wrfttan order, by the Dlre(:tor of Homeland 5(ieutity saying: the federal gtWenlmeot would not pte6&CUIG (!he legal term Ul !hat they would~ 

prosecution) more than 4 million parents of minors who were legal residents or dll:zens, e\tt:i.n though 1he parents were In thi!!- country meg ally. 

Now if you are, like me. completety frustrated by Congresa's failure m addrassimmfgrstion mfotm, this directive may sound att rtght. Butthee-xeculfve 

branch cannot changB lh~t law: that Is solety up 1o Congress. Genetal Pruitt I.JOder.stand! this. f mea!! a eonll'efsation in wtllc!l tt.e. said that at the very least 

OHS abouf.d have oompfied wtlh the minimal notice and hearing pro111sl1Jns of Ute Admin!.strattve Procedures Act:. DHS did no! even do ltlat; It just wrote a 

ditel;tive and sent tl: otrt. 

General Pn.Jitt's pos.ititm on these matters is cafl5i&Wrtt. He took the same position on educaUon, heallh care and envlronm~ntall$~. When a fede!"EJ 

agencytakos the voice at the pe<~pfe and their e1ecled re:pre.senlattves out of1ht:l ptfJC:e!iS, thetis a problem, Tite framers of the Co.rmtltutlcn probably had 

no Idea the federal government WQtJfd morph into this adminls'l.r«tive state under which we all operate, but they <:ertainly did not protaoidtffur rem{llling lhe 

voice nf the people al!ogether from these lssues. 

Here is anotheruample: Tenns&t;" hu ovar 67,000 farm operations. Fannlartd CO'JefS atmost 11 tnBI!on aaes in TMMS&ee:. the production .of 

livesl.odc and key field crops like' soybeans, ectt.an, and com are ilgnitlcant a.ources of tevanue. Farmers. represent one of the !ltatc's core constfll!encies. 

The EPA und'ertha eurrent admlnf:&tration unveii~O the Watem oftha U.S. {WOTUS} rule. WOTUS expaFld:S the deiinfUon ofwa~erways repufated by the 

EPA lo tndude anybcdyofwaterthathat a bed, banio; snd high watermark. Streams, creeka,dftches, bro-()b, aM e~~enpQnds are argl.IBbty at! under 

EPA regulation because o1this rufe. So a stzellble petoo.ntage of private tand in TenMS1!ie& Is ~er lha EPA's rooiJfaUon. 

Wht-n th~ rul& came out.Laey Upchurch, then President of the F.aiTI'l ~au, said ~faiTl'Jers am doing a goOO job with their COnsef'll.;diO:n practices. We 

just think ifs o.ve:rread:l from the EPA." AQ fanners want deM water, but under VVOTt.JS. ranneTS- may have to obtain n.e.w penn Ita trom e~r of two 

federal agendes., the EPA or the Army Corps of EnQinee~ Tills wOOid mquire surveys, assessments, walt times and fees. Buildfng a pond might 

become a regulatory nighimare. DfsttJrbfng a stream wllhout a fedetar permit to Tennes.see t:oold cost a farmer up to $51,570 per day in eM!' penall:fM. If 

he or she ~oukt pay that, tho only way to recoup H woukl be to chl'l!tge hlgheTprlces, teaving CONUmers with hlghergroGery' bl:Hs, 

Scott P'rutfl woUd ..veigh ali c.fthls before l.ssutng .a rule like WOTVS. Protecting an indhtidua!'s. prQVeffy rights wOO:Id be Important to Nm, Whefl fac;.OO with 

how to deterrr'line modifications. of a wateJWay. 

At. EPA tn::fmfni!Strator, scou PruiH wW bring a reascned ana balanced approach back to the agency. He Js a constitution at conservative. Hli!J has reached 

across the ai&le to pass menningtul regulations to praled: Oklahoma waters and ha$ aggressively pursued litigation against PQI!uters. 

A$ e state attomey ger~eral ~ de vel opec;! sopt,lsllcated and pra~fcal: ecolagicat protections. He understands the EPA's mfs:s!Qn to guard human health 

and the enviroM'lent. At the same Utne, he understarli;fa the bigger picture that regu.Jatrona affe~ wr property rights, om ablfity to compete, and our 

Mvel!hoods. 
699 

rigl'\ls lo the Statas. 

Frankly. t flod reh&htnQ the thought trat SQffK:Nn1:! who real1y undetSlands the importance of Sttlles' rights ancl the ~ation of poweB will be tea (ling a largo fader$~ agency like ~he EPA. There may be a whole new set Qf questions baWg a&ked: c~u1 the. executive br.anth do thls without congrnu? 'Mist is 

the efrect ofthi!.ac.tion on the eCQhomy? Property rights? 

~m4~Aglllti~(EPA)Adm:I~Q1'1ltto-SooftPftlift~W!1t•f4PWtii'II~Qf1dulklgl'itafi16Wog'l'fift.h Sen.ShlllttiUcar'rlCapikl,. R·W.VI\.. 

Olll~!toiHlllnWuhlngton,Wcd'"''t.dll)',.t.rl..4,2et'l'.{APPM1ofCiiff~(~ CtfltOW!M,AP} 

MOST POPULAR STORIES 

Rsfr J;itlgd in Suntosr Cnunt~ to be urtiffird a World ruso! 

!bttp:Uwww~ttalnmna:ootn/storyJspyrtsfl017!01109/derr-smnn£r"'-wQftt• 

.... "'JY!!§!4800M 

Airbnb gwlatiens; ths ngtarizing luue of the vep.r 

(hUn:/Jwww.W!Jl.mj):.in cmnlJ:fmJpWnionfsolumni§t!!/dayirt-. 

nfaw!l{)t?/!U!lllairb~Jb..ngulations--uol!tbimHmtYAAr{%!$lMQ 

Htu 8Qml!!i[AA ehllcged ftt; fW:tft" nr \\-"'f§£1 

G\UniU!Y'!!lY.tsg.nsswn,.srunJs&m;rlmtfttpinme!J.lmnsltQOj7/011l t!bWJ~bonnllt1)~ 

<ha!l)!l!!l-bvtter-w•rnsl2ft!49220 

f~tnsab Jlantry tbang£! han& after 56 vetrs 

{hun:l.fwwv.tennwe1.tn.eoml!toM'ImoncyllOfWl/IO:lpunenkHIU\trv:£hange.11 .. 

Wd ... a&g=S'-y••'lf?!f§lJ~ 

V1uulerhik CEQ 8ah£r buy.s Sil\f hgms at former Welsh Co&ge tampus 

!l!l!J!:IIwww,!egn<!§!!!!!·""""'tory/m9j!!1l'jt-..!-gtaW20! ZIIIJII l!Yum<::W!·b•LS£r· 

btm·lOI··Iuunrlormtr~wek:fl..co!legHampwi9§4St!l9,W 

R•ad or Sha<t> W• otory: htlp:l~nne.~jz!JSYF 
700 

STATE OF ALABAMA 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

January 4, 20 17 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, District of Columbia 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

S 13 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, District of Columbia 20510 

Dear Chail'lllan Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

As the attorneys general of our respective states, we write to express our unqualified 

support for our colleague and the Attorney General of Oklahoma, 13. Scott Pmitt, as 

Administrator of the U.S. 13nvironmental Protection Agency. 

As attorneys general, we understand the need to work cotlaborative!y to address threats 

to our environment that cross state lines, as well as the impo11ance of a federal counterpart 

in the EPA Administrator who possesses the knowledge. experience, and principles to 

work with our states to address issues affecting our environment. We believe that no one 

exemplifies these qualities more than Scott Pruitt. 

As the Attorney General of Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt developed expertise in environmental 

law nnd policy. He negotiated a historic water rights settlement with Indian tribes that 

preserved the ecosystems of scenic lakes and rivers; he worked with his Democrat 

counterpart in Arkansas to t•cduce pollution in the Illinois River; and he represented the 

interests of Oklahomans in rate cases against utility companies and in numerous actions 

against those who contaminated his state's air and water. 

Attorney General Pruitt is committed to clean air and clean water, and to faithfully 

executing the environmental laws written by Congress. He believes that environmental 

regulations should be driven by State and local governments--a notion endorsed by 

Congress in the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. When our nation is confronted with 

issues affecting the environment that are not covered by a particular statute, Scott will 

come to Congress for a solution, rather than inventing power for his agency. He 

wholeheartedly believes in a strong Environmental Protection Agency that carries out its 

proper duties, providing a backstop to state and local regulators as they develop 

envii'Onmentalregulations suited to the needs of their own communities. 
701 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

January 4, 2017 

Page Two 

Scott Pruitt is more than just an exemplary state attorney general, he is also our friend. 

A man of deep faith who is committed to his family and to his friends, Scott seeks always 

to do the right thing. His friendship and leadership have been invaluable to us over the 

years. 

The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency plays a critical role in our 

Nation's government. Attorney General Pruitt has proven over the course of his career 

that he has the right character, experience, and knowledge to serve as the Administrator 

of the EPA. We urge the Senate to confirm his nomination. 

Sincerely, 

/:;{:{4· 

Jeff Landry 

Attorm~y General 

State of Louisiana 

~!!_;-·-

Marty Jackley 

Attorney Gener·al 

State of South Dakota 

'fi\,N.~-

Mark Brnovich 

Attorney General 

State of Arizona 

$!# 

Brad Schimel 

Attorney Goneral 

State of Wisconsin 

Alan Wilson 

Attorney General 

State of South Carolina 

PM1'4- fHm1 ~ Patrick Morrisey 

Attorney General 

State of West Virginia 

..,-_!}vJJW-.Ji J /.17!.! 

Herbert Slatery 

Attorney General 

State of Tennessee 

;4- ,·?~,<.) 

Ken Paxton 

Attorney Gene1·al 

State of Texas 

~ S\.-N-~ Luther Strange 

Attorney General 

State of Alabama 

Adam 

d;l~ xalt 

Attorney General 

State ofNevada 

/ -------~}: , .. c:.--f!!-A--- •'-' 

Curtis Hill 

Attorney General 

State of I11diana 

&it~ 

Bill Schuette 

Attorney General 

State of Michigan 
702 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

January 4, 20 I 7 

Page Three 

lhlt..J') ·l ,1~'·"'·- "'' "' -~ '··- . 

'·. ' ' V' Doug Peterson 

Attorney General 

State of Nebraska 

11 fUt, Ok~- ~~~e Steneh}oln 

Attorney General 

Stare of North Dakota 

/7/AtttA<--

(;(;1. !/ 

Chris Carr 

Attorney General 

State of Georgia 

·_,) .... ~-/(~~ 

Leslie Rutledge 

Attorney General 

State of Arkansas 

-----~ 

Lawrence Wasden 

Atlorney General 

State of Idaho 

,~, Attorney General 

State of Missouri 

Tim Fox 

Attorney General 

State of Montana 

Peter Michael 

Attorney General 

State of Wyoming 

~ Scan Reyes 

Attorney General 

State of Utah 

Attorney General 

State of Florida 

3:::).-e.J: S.f:..:.Lfoerek Schmidt 

Attorney General 

State of Kansas 

Mike DcWine 

Attorney General 

State of Ohio 
703 

Attorney General scott Pruitt 

(Republican of Oklahoma) is 

seen in the lobby of the Trump 

Tower in New York, 1\k>w York, 

on November 28, 2016. Credit: 

Anthony Behar I Pool via CNP 

/MediaPunch/IPX 

Pruitt Is a Balanced Selection for 

EPA Chief 

Posted to 

With all the fireworks of the 2016 campaign now silenced, President-elect Donald Trump is getting 

to work assembling a government. As a lifelong Democrat, I may not agree with all of the 

President-elect's policies or nominees, but I do know that Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt 

is a good choke to head up the Environmental Protection Agency. 

As a Democrat, take seriously the threats to our environment, and I believe we must work to 

address issues such as pollution, climate change, and ensuring clean air and water. Scott Pruitt's 

background in constitutional law, combined with a nuanced understanding of how 

environmental regulations affectthe economy, mean that he will be a thoughtful leader of the 

EPA, and one capable of striking the balance between protecting the environment and our 

economy. 

Scott Pruitt understands that an American energy revolution is a means of new jobs and new 

wealth in our country. Of course, the energy industry, just like any other industry, should be 

subject to appropriate scrutiny to make sure laws are followed, our environment is protected, and 

Americans are safe. The potential for the energy industry to contribute to an economic 

renaissance is enormous: half a million jobs each year and $30 biUion In higher wages, according 

Finally, the job of the EPA is the essential mission of guaranteeing dean air and clean water. Scott 

Pruitt has never compromised those critical components of a healthy population 

he has taken. uwe drink the water, we breathe the air here in Oklahoma. To think that we don't 

care about that, and somehow are being led to sacrifice those things ... not accurate," Pruitt t2!Q 

Financial Times. I am 
704 

convloced Scott Pruitt wm work to protect our natural habitats, reserves, and resources. His 

vision for a proper relationship between protection and prosperity makes him superbly qualified 

to serve as our next EPA administrator. 

About the Author 

Mike Turpen 

Mike Turpen is the former Attorney General of Oklahoma. 

More from Inside Sources 
705 

Scott Pruitt's a good pick for EPA administrator 

Tfflt se!eet:lon of Oklahoma Attorney General Srott Pn.mt to serve as Envit'onmental Protection Agency 

adm!nlstretor is bokl It is also encouraging. 

lt has attracted a .tot of notice and .eritlclsln, the ll~.te: and cry Is lou.d. "He does oot belie~Je in climate change; he 

does not believe in the EPA's mission: he: faliors the ci1 and {WS JndufWY.~ f do m:H: think het fits any t~f tfu:lse 

descrlptlon$. 

Here's why 1 thlnk General Ptuitt ts a good pldt: He Is a lawyer, a tawyer who understands the Consh'tutlon, ln 

particular the llmite:tlone. placed on the- executive braneh and its agencies. Our Offlce has worked with General 

Pruitt and other altonwys Qef!Sfili on a number of issues nmging from lmrrnQraUon to education to the 

environment tQ health care. 

(Fhr:ltO.· ~ We have joined several lawsuits d'Jailenoing broad, Q¥etreaehing actions by federal agencies. We do not Join 

th;e-se cases lightty, to "make a statement"', or for some politicat motiVation. We 00 it to protect the state of 

Tennesli&e, its citizens and It$ sovereign right to govent. 

My reeotledlon l$ that General PT"itt was a leader in brin\)illg a nunl:ber tlf the$:e a$9s. Here l$ an txampfe: One case challenged en exeeuiWe dil'&d.Wa, 

a written order, by the D~ Qf Homeland Security s.al4ng the. federal govamment would not prosecute {the ~et term lS that they would~ 

prosecution} more then 4 million patem:s of minors who wero lega!l'e$ktents or citirens, even though the parents were !n the colintry il'legatty, 

Now lf VQU are, like me, completely fnJstfated by Congress's tanura to address irrlmlgratlon reform, this directive may sound an rtgtrt, But tb0 exEWUva branCh cannot Chaf19e the law; that is~ up to Congres$. General Pruitt understands lbis. l recelt a conversation ln IM'!ich he said that at the very Je8$t OHS shoWd have complied with the m!rdma! notice and haaftn9 provietons d the Administrative Proced;ure.s Act DHS did not even dt:~ that it jUst wrote a 

difectlve and Hnt it out 

Genera! Pruilt's position on these matters is consistent He took the same position on education, health care and environrn&fltal issues, When a federal 

agency f3kes the voice of the people and theif e-lected representatives out of the proceas. that l$ a problem. The framers of the ccmstttution probably had 

no idea the fedttnllgovemment would morph in-to this administrative state under which we all oper•, but they csrtamfy did not provide for removing the voic:e of the people altogether frem thll!"$@ issues. 

Her@ l$ another examP'9: Ten~ has -over 67,000 farm QPerationa. Farmland covers alm0$t 11 millf<!.n acres in T&Me$$i!le. The productiort of livestock at'lcl f\.ey fl:eld crops ~e soybeans, cotton, and com ars significant sources of fflvenue, Farmers tepresent en& of the Qte's core constituencies. 

The EPA under the current adminJslfatloo tuweiled the Wetef$ of the U.S. (VVOTUS} rlJie. WOTVS expand:& the definition of waterways regulated by the EPA to mdude 111ny body of water that has a bed, tank and high water mark. Stre-ams, creeks, di:idles.. brooks.. and even ponds are arguably a« under EPA reoulation because o1 this. rule. So a sU:eabfe percentage Of private R:lnd in Tennessee ls unOerfue EPA's regulation. 

When til& rule came o1,1t. Laey Upchurch, tnen Pre-sident of the Farm Bureau, said "farmers am doing a good job wtth their COn&eNatlon practices, We just think it's overreach from tna EPA.~ Alf farmers want clean water, but under \IVOTUS, farmers may ha~te to obtain new pemlifsl'fom: eith9r at two federal agendas, the EPA or the Army Catps of Englnee!$. This would require surveys, assessments, watt times and faes_ Building a pond might beetlme a regulatory nightmara. Disturbing a .stream without a federal permit tn TenM&see could CQS:J~a: fermer up to $51,570 perdsy in clvl! penalties. tf he or she eoJJfd pay that, the onty way to recoup it wou!d be to charge h}gh.er prices, laa>Mg consu{Tters with h~her grocery Oilts.. 

Scott Pruttt woukl weigtt aU of this before !s'Suing a rule Uke WOTtJS. Protecting an iOOMdual's property rights would be important to him, when fated with how to determine modifications of a waterway. 
706 

He underst.ands that notwithstanding the ubiqtJity of federal agency ln\lolvement the Constitution, W'l parttcutar the Tenth Amendtne'flt, re.set"'lltS stgnffioent 

rlghts to the Slates. 

Frankly, f find refm&t'Jing the thought that someone who reaDy unrtemtands the irnpnrtance of State$' righ-ts and the separation of powers wlll be leadl!lg a 

large 'fe.d$-ral agency fika the EPA. There may be a whole new set of questions being asked; Can the executive branch -da this. without Congress? What Is 

th~ effed of this a~on on the economy? Property rights? 

MOST POPULAR STORU;s 
707 

Arkansas Attorney General: Why Scott Pruitt is the right 

choice for the EPA 

By General Lealie Rutledge 

Bellnlha tntt dried on lhe press releale announcing Praoideni-Met Donald Trump's nominetian of Oklahoma Aaomey General 

Scott PN111 to be the Administrator of the Environm4Jnlal Prolection Agency (EPA), lberal special inlwat groupo INd up to oppose 

lhe nornlndcn. 

can anyone hor.ally lmllglne an EPA I10I11IMe bv the pretlident-elec thet these groupo IOOUid hlllle supporlld? Once we get 

beyond the --partisan political-. H beaomea -lhalthe preeldont..,lec:f• dloice Is the rjghl person atlhe rtgnt ti___, 

~I fully ouppcxt 

Despite- you.,_ fft:m the left side oflhe aisle, Republicana actually do want.,._, air and water. 

In a 2013 speech, hllllntd unequivocally lhal "there Ia a proper rote" lor thll EPA to nogulate on "issues with ,_a to deanand alr that emu olate Nnea." 

Halting-"' yarw 81/eluatlng the legali1y, nec:euny and impact of EPA regLAationo, he has been at the forefront of Chllllenging the 

EPAwf1eniiiiC8IIIIry. 

'Mien the EPA lld8 in excess of na legal authorfty. and -the ager~cy adopts unneceseary and arbitnlly rules that do inaedibly 

lillie to aid the enYironment while doing a lot to harm the economy, Attorney Genaral Pruitt has been strong in lighting the agency 

whlclthll,_to_. 

Of the nurnotOUS ragulatlons that the EPA publillhed during hla tenure aa Attorney Genetal of Oldahoma. hll haa only challenged 

the handful of regula1iona lhal he beu...d _,IBr outaide the legal paramala<s ollhe agBncy'. R Is juat !hi& type of balanced 

8ppf08Cil thatAnwicana Me<!·~ the whnlat the EPA. 

The EPA has-HI ll!pUtation es the moat lawlela executll/e agency. Over ll1e- eight years, H has agein and again painted 

fer OWide the linea of HI legal authority under-~ bv Congress. 

Thla type of condud hal garnered I1UII1Ili'OUS rabul<el fft:m the U.S. Supreme Court and n-..ttiple I"""' oourta, no1 to mention the inl 

of eong,_ and - atiDmeya general, Hke myaalf and Aaom.y General Prulll. 

It ia inaadlllly Important to the auc:c:aa of the EPA'o primary million lhat the 8QBncy' regainathe bipattisan and wldeapraad raapect 

H once had. And IIIIa.,., only be accomplllllod bv ,.;gning in 111e llignlficant and 1aw1e1a ex-of the-· Attorney Gemnl 

Prulll is juat the~ to IICilDII'IPiish this-· His knowledge of the Arnlbotions placed on the EPA bv atetlMo and by the U.S. 

Conalllullon ilexlllllnolive, aa II 1\lo undaratanding of the importance of -g with 11 oppoaed to againSt- agencies in .,.... 

of I1IQUiatoly owrlep. 

Tha P~-sent IC Wuhlngton by the Ameri.., people to drain lhe ........,. Of aU tho entrenched bu~es In 

Wuhington. D.C., With which I '--. the EPA II probably 111e mosl-ioua. 

Its ca,_ lllsfl ia more of a -Ha allioa ol the Sierra Club and Dll1er coallalalile oroanlzaliona then a fair atbiter betWeen 1111 

dtizenland d .._ ..... 

For too long the EPA hu had a atranglehold on our nation's economy. The magnitude o1 the~ requiAta more !han just the 

usual Cil&llll* olleaderahlp thot oornes With a ,_ aclrrinlslralion -it requireo al-that can nt-1ooua the agency on n eore 

rriaalon and - H ~ fft:m a cultUre ollagaly dubiouo action. 

Soott Pruitt lithe rlghlperaon at the right time to lead the EPA. 

LUlie ~utJetlge Is lhl1 !!6/lr AllonMty Gelwa/ of A~ Elecled on No•. 4, 2014, rhe is lite fitst won>an ancJ fitst Republican in 

Atlcansas his/Dty to be &/ecl8d to the otfiee. 

URL 
708 

http:J/www.bozemandailychronicle.comlopinlons/guest_columnists/zinke-pruitt-both-deserveswift-confirmationfartide_7f4899ac-75f2-5795-a6be-5fb9a3470636.html 

Zinke, Pruitt both deserve swift 

confirmation 

By Tim Fox, guest columnist jan 1, 2017 

"America is a nation oflaws, not of men and women." 
709 

These words, spoken countless times throughout our nation's history, should always 

be a guiding principle for policymakers in America. As citizens of this great nation, 

we must ask those who lead our country to respect the supremacy of law, as it's only 

then that differences of opinion can coexist peacefully. 

Two individuals recently selected to help lead our country embody this necessary 

characteristic, and we would be lucky to have their service. 

I am pleased by President-elect Trump's nomination of Montana's congressman, 

Ryan Zinke, to serve as secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior, and Oklahoma's 

attorney general, Scott Pruitt, to serve as administrator of the U.S Environmental 

Protection Agency. I have the privilege of knowing both individuals personally, and I 

believe they will continue to serve out country well in their new roles. 

Congressman Zinke has been a steadfast supporter of responsible natural resource 

development, sensible environmental protections, ba1ancing access to public lands 

with private property rights, and has worked tirelessly to maintain positive and 

productive relationships with tribal nations across Montana. And perhaps most 

importantly, I am confident Congressman Zinke will respect the legal limitations of 

his new post, and adhere to our nation's lawmaking process. I look forward to his 

swift and decisive confirmation by the U.S. Senate. 
710 

I have the same hopes for the confirmation of Attorney General Pruitt. 

Unfortunately, opponents of General Pruitt's nomination see fit to misrepresent his 

work as Oklahoma's attorney general to rally opposition to his confirmation. In an 

attempt to portray him as an "out-of-touch extremist," detractors characterize his 

opposition to certain Obama administration policy initiatives as "anti-science." These 

claims couldn't be further from the truth. 

Under federal law, the states have a significant role to play in the realm of 

environmental protection. Throughout President Obama's tenure in office, the EPA 

regularly ignored congressional prescription of states' environmental protection role. 

Legal challenges to unlawful regulations such as Waters of the U.S. (WanJS) and the 

so called "Clean Power Plan" are examples of General Pruitt standing up for the rights 

of his state when the EPA adopted public policy that circumvented the proper 

process. 

It's illogical to claim an individual is somehow opposed to scientific realities simply 

because they are dedicated to preserving the rule of law in our country. Public policy 

rooted in science must still be enacted through the proper channels, and in the 

United States, that means recognizing the reality that is the separation of powers and 

the principles of federalism. 

Simply put, we all must play by the rules of the game. If we don't, it's just a matter of 

time before "the shoe is on the other foot," and those championing unilateral 

policymaking one day become those voicing outrage the next. 

Congressman Zinke's and General Pruitt's high regard for the rule oflaw in America 

is invaluable. I call on Sen. Daines, Sen. Tester and the rest of the U.S. Senate to 

support swift confirmation of both men to their new positions, as our nation is best 

served if they are allowed to get to work as soon as possible. A vote against 

confirmation is a vote against Montana. 

Tim Fox is the attorney general of Montana. 
711 

LETTERS TO TilE EDITOR JANUARY 2, 2017 4:55PM 

Scott Pruitt and the end of EPA 

overreach 
712 

COLUMBIA, SC - Since President-elect Donald Trump nominated Oklahoma 

Attorney General Scott Pruitt to be the next administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency, extremists have attempted to malign him as anti-environment. 

It's time to set the record straight. 

The Trump Cabinet: Bonfire of the agencies 

'War on coal'? Trump EPA nominee says natural gas is the winner, not 

regulators 

Since Republicans took control of the House and Senate in 2011, President Barack 

Obama circumvented Congress and used his agencies to create policy he could not 

get passed by the people's representatives. The EPA has been one of the worst 

offenders, sometimes even stepping outside its authority to impose on states a 

regulatory regime that Congress explicitly rejected. 

That's why I joined with Pruitt and a bipartisan majority of attorneys general to 

oppose Obama's Clean Power Plan. It's why I've joined numerous other lawsuits 

against the EPA, many led by Pruitt. Our opposition was not founded in any 

antagonism toward the environment. Instead, it was out of fidelity to the law and 

Constitution, which forbid these top-down mandates on the states. 

ADVERTISING 
713 

SADLY, THE EPA HAS BECOME AN AGENCY SYNONYMOUS " WITH INEFFECTIVE POLICIES THAT 

STALL OUR ENERGY AND MANUFACTURING PRODUCTION AND DELAY MUCH NEEDED JOB 

GROWTH. 

As stewards of the environment, it is our responsibility to protect it and ensure that 

we leave it in great condition for years to come. However, the environment should 

be protected through som1d regulation and laws that are responsible, predictable 

and accountable. 

Scott Pruitt is deeply respected in Oklahoma and among his colleagues nationwide 

for his integrity, intellect and knowledge of constitutional law. It is exactly these 

qualities that are necessary to rein in an out-of~contr9l EPA and focus it on its 

original mission of working with states and at the direction of Congress to protect 

our air, water and land. 

Sadly, the EPA has become an agency synonymous with ineffective policies that 

stall our energy and manufacturing production and delay much-needed job growth. 

Scott Pruitt knows the EPA has a critical role to play in ensuring we all benefit from 

a cleaner environment. He also knows that there is an essential role for Congress 

and the states, and that new regulations must be weighed against the costs they 

impose on our economy and pocketbooks. 

I look forward to continuing to work with him to protect the rule of law and reform 

the EPA. 

ATIVRNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON 

COLUMBIA 

MORE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 
714 

hl!p:/IWWN.tribstar.com/opinioniflashpoinllflashpoinl·PNil!-has-toughness-expertise-to-conll'oh3palarticle_218fa927 • 

f565·5aea·65a5-002a452de053. l!tml 

Flashpoint: Pruitt has toughness, expertise to control EPA 

Dec21, 2016 

OWG•in@@ 

ByCurt!sHm 

Indiana State Attorney General-Elect 

Washington rule makers and regulators have long needed policing by someone who understands the 

Constitution and is unbowed by special interests. If I could pick one guy for that job, it would be 

Attorney General Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma. I am thrilled to see that he is likely to have lhe opportunity to 

oversee the department with the most out-of-control regulatory agenda- the Environmental Protection 

Agency. It is absolutely critical that our United States senators- including Joe Donnelly confirm him 

for that role. 

Scott Pruitt has earned national recognition for his expertise in constitutional law, the federal regulatory 

system and his dogged determination ln taking on tough fights on behalf of his constituents. One 

example that impacted us here in Indiana was General Pruitt's work to successfully block the EPA's 

attempts to harass America's farmers and ranchers by redefining what the term "navigable" water 

means under the Clean Water Act He also stood up to the Obama Administration's unconstitutional 

executive orders, like lhosa that led the War on Coal. 

This commitment to the Tenth Amendment and pushing back government overraach has extended to 

other issues. General Pruitt has worked on lawsuits that challenged Obamacare and the new 

unconstitullonal taxes being levied by the Obama Administration. 

Whlle federalism and the rule of law will always be hls guiding star, General Pruitt has also 

demonstrated a commitment to unleashing an energy revolution in this country and doing so in a way 

that proteels our natural resources, ensuring clean air and clean water. 
715 

POliCY. SCIENCE. BUSINESS. 

EPA 

Trump's pick left Okla. water pollution case hanging 

~~~Nm.aHoikkmun, E&ENftll&~ 

~"T~y ./4(1f.#Jry3,2{)17 

Ok~Afi9iMV~$oott Prullt!A.J, Preaitkmt-ol0Ct~Trllfi'IJ)'spiektoo Mad U,S EPA, .spook& lOb l)t:j,ahoma farm 

~'$4f14"''..aamf!a'llng\tl2014.. ~i't!:!l}111i1Gr9i'n0k~poiitfea,Pruit!Wek~nl!!rQeeOrffiitlutJol"'atmm ~i!llmer$&!$, 

Tho~ Fam'I64'MSU I'm contrtWect S10,7501ohis campiDgn$, P~!,ll')! tt~e~~f'arm Suw$u, ~nff'1!c;tr, 

!n 2005, the state Of Oklahoma ffled a tawsutt against 14 poultry producers, ~tm:ing the companies IN'E!ffl dumping ''hundt'&t$$ of 

thousands of len$" ol d'lidlen waste IntO the UliJlOis River walef'She<l. 

The mtnols Rtver ~into Ten killer f91'1Y lake, a 12,~ body Of watet described in the suit as !he ~,emerald lewd in OklahOma's 

Ct'OWf1 of lakes.." Some dsUned the lak:~'s water was -once so d(mr, s per:son -cotrld see to the bot!om 

E.&E Ntlw$' ongctng ~eQf 

the MJ\01' ~lor\ and tM 

The -cooe 'N8$ ~in federal court ln 2009. Mer a 52-,tJay trial, th.e two sides rested on Feb, 18, 

2010. And then: f'I:Othlng. The suit f@rrtalns undedded to this day. 

The inaction c:olnctdet with Scott Pruitt's asceTl$IDn to lh~ Oldahoma attorney generat$ office. 

Pru!tt, a Republ'ican whom Donald Trump ha$ oomtnated to seJVe as U.S. EPA edmirlistrator, won an eteetlon to replaee the Sooner State's outgoing Democratic rrtrorMy general in 2010. 

fn the $IX yeara $!nee, Pn.utt nas Ghosen nof to take any further legal adiOn in the case. 

The suit ~a windOIN lnto how Pnfttt may approactt the job at EPA edmli'llstretor. Critics or the 

Oklahoma attomey general say lt deman~tea his fax approach to .en'lliroofflefltal regulations. 

Suppof1ers maintain that it illustratee nte prafamnca for negotiation over tltlgetion 

'1 SUSpect if M MY time {Pruiltj had chose to prod the judge, heWO!Ad have i$\Jed thedeeiaion," 

said Gary AUison, a prOfessor at 1M UniV'OOJity ofTutsa ~ of law. "Stott had told fO!iqJ. that pubtk: policy si'\Quldft't be deCided 

th:rough the courtroom and litigalion." 

"Regtdation through litigation i:s wrong in my view,~ he told the ~r. '1lml was not a decision my~ tJ't.Sde, tt was a ease we inherited." 

A polluter's dream or o PfOI:ettor agalll$IOYe,.,....,h7 

Pni!U is mos1l'{l<nown at tile nationlli level !Or hi$ lega!Cilallenges tt> EPA """'· He has lnitillied or joiiT<lQ at- 14 cases againsi EPA, according to a I'S'IIlew by the EnvtrfJilmental ~ Fund. 
716 

H<> is""""""' best"'"'''"' In< his -ll!oo to the Clean Power Plan and Clean WoW Rule. H!alltlgation has also.ll"geted EPA 

regu~Stionoon _,.., men:ury M<l sm:>g, aswa!laolhe _-.finding !OO!grom>11<Juse-~publ~<:- and-. 

E~ groups ola!m !OO!Ihe laWSIIi!sdenybasic --law< industry-·· 

Two fe<!eral polltl<:alacllon comm-..llllgne<! IIIith Pruitt ha\le -large conl!lbutionsll<lme""''')l C<llllP"nles and -Illes, 

Federal Eteetion CommissiOn fltings s110w. They -" SSO,OOO Qll!!rll)ution 11om Mumw £""'~~)/ Corp., a coal company the! !las 

~me Clean Power Plan; $30,000 11om !11e family of Josepll Craft, CEO ol Alllanee -.:e Partn...,., a Tu!sli.OOS<id coal 

C<llllP"ny; am:! $1S,OOO fn>m C~l-.:ealnc., en Ol<lahoma Cl!y-haS<id oil and gas fftm. 

"He'&~ 0111 a very ex!reme view of EPA lllldlts role and meaning of its ats!utes. It's a llieWthet is 00\IC!I<!d ill !lig!Hninde<! 

le®tallllm tll!ma about ~ t\lle$ that govern le!:lllr!ll en<:~ stale relations," said Dall!d Doniger, <llrectnr ol the 1\llllurol-.:e. 

~ Council'• climate and cla$n air program. 'But hi$ opinions line up 100 P!)lcent wi\h tha ol>jectlves and interas!S of some of !he 

l>lggast pollutero.' 

Prulll's supporters S1'lt:l ha Will bring a measured les!tership approad! to EPA's lOP job ij ha is-· 

David Rivkin, a psMe< at Sal<-woo has ''"ll!«od onl'ruit!'J>-""110 !ollie clean""""' I'IM, seid the Oklahoman's focus Will 

be oo erntmg regulations thet are firmly backed by !lie Con$1llution. 

'En~ p!'Qiacliorlls important proftdlon of em~ isltnpof!ant, !here $!<l many il'l1flM<lnl pollcy goals," RM<in said. 

-·!he~ thing has to be lollowing !lie COI'lllliM!<ln. Theee laWSIIits weren~ llrough! for policy dll!efll!lOOS," 

Ken Cucdnelll. former a!tooley general ofVltginla, w11o wori<ed w!fll Pruitt in the past, !!llid, ·e-opponents, ~!hey get to wori< IIIith him, 

win lind !hey win be treated well and ~ na matter flow strongly opinions are felt on either oWe. He_,, flap In the wirid, but 

ne (IOOs incorporate wnat psopia say to him." 

Inside thll Ark. agreement 

Amorl9 the nrst enaUangasl'ruill faced upon -11!1 Ol<i!l!l<lmll'll top lawyer in 2011 was the Sooner Slate's ttaug!lt reialion$hip w1111 

neigllborlng Ark""""s. 

The hea<lw!ilero of lite lllinoialliver begin In Arl<anllll$, whiCh !las long been at O<!<ls IIIith Ol<lahoma over me pollution--

govam!ng lite-· In 1992,!tla ~Coot! ttlled Arl<anS!l$. .. Ina uPstream o!ll!e, tlall to abide byO-·s poilu!Joo 

--·A~ later, the Oklahoma Laglolatum set~ liml1s for scenic ~Yell!, lnoluding the lllinG!s arid Its Wbutatle$. 

Arkansas agree<~ towori< w1t11 Oklahoma to reduce phosphorus 

le...U. in 2000, but the~ helwaen tOO two states 

del-afler!lle POUli1Y -tt btoug~t by Pf\1111'$ ~SSOI', Omw Eclmoridson. 

In 2012. Artwn!!IIS r~ i$$lled a report q"""tlooing 

Ol<lahoma's P~ll!andafd. Pruittcll0$2 to~-his 

The-""""""' a ~uslon laol month. largely allirming 

Ol<iahoma'si)OIIution fimlis. 

"H<> played a clillcal role In getting"" ali efOIJrid !lie table; said .10. 

Strong, lbr"""llea<lortlle Oklahoma WaterR-Soaro. 

'Dlmng his time •• <111omey general. I tllillk we neve maida greal 

Slri<kl$ wt1an « oomaoto actual efforts to dean up sceniC riV<l<Sill 

Oklahoma.' 

Artwnsas and Old-tied lllreaey agreed to pollution -ert!s for !lie IIHnG!s River waterslll!d by tna time PNitt came to office na ncil$<1, ' 

O!!lle-t Pruilt stnlcl< wnn hisArf<""-~11$, ~lersaid, ·~was!ust an agreemanttojustgobacl< and !l<lCOO<I· 

A hllnde-olf Spj!rollel!? 

Thro\/Qhout hi$ vears In Oklehoma politic&. Pruitt also ilasll!llled In l!lr!l<l oontnbutions from~ interests. The Ol<lahoma Fall!\ 

!Meilu !las oontt!buled $10,750 to his campaigns. Memberll of tna Ty$0!1 family gave $12.500 to Pruitt's 2010 elaclioo bid """'fding FollowTtlaMoney.org. 10 ' 

Tha!amliyCM~pany, Tyson Foods Inc., wasnameo a defendant Ill the -case. 
717 

This fafl, Pruitt backtK! a failed ballOt initiative that would have made it more dlfl'icu1t tot the state tegismtw:e to pass laws regulating 

fMnl.ng and mnching ~. The measure was oppo$ed by a. range of COflSerltatron and rec.reation '9f0\Ji)S. which feared it 'NOutd 

weskan 1M state's wat-er quality standards.. 

Uncofn Fef9U$00, a Pn .. ult spokesman, sal:d critics have mtscharacterized the llifahoma attorney general's record. He noted Pruitt has 

not $01J9ht the dtsmissaf of tne poultry case, He alsO pointed to tile BaylOr study, saying it confirmed Oldahoma'e phosphorus standards 

Wflf'E! supported by the best ~vWI,abte &dence. The study ensured they wookl not be relaxed, as Arkai"!Sas sought. Fergueon said. 

''This team has held tlad actors accountable and protected mewatdshlp of OfdahOma'S natural resources," Ferguson said. 

autP-oalllcswmyh~ approaeh to the poolliy case eool<lspell alais,...,.lreapproaehto..,viron""""'" regulatioo Many Who had 

hopeGI to dean up the watefs of eastern Ok!attoma were left disappointed by Ns dedslon not to seek a resolution to the case, eald 

A!Hson, lh& UniYefS!ty of Tutsa professor. 

"ltHlefewas a desire on the piJttofthe presiaent-.elect fOriax environmental regulation, it WOUld match What Scott Pruitt has dooe here," 

he-

- ENERGVWIRE ~ ·""'~."'~ ~~ f!H Tl'll'1S.fitlit!<l0()(t!H fl)f'JHS, "H ~ ~ * W}'';f"~ ~ ""' 

lall!il!liilll!IIII!J!I~--

' 

The essential news for enefiD' & environment professionals 

01~2fl11E.&E~.u.c JillQ.l:d.~~.M 
718 

Justin ••• 

New rqsl•rToeoday! 

Cuban immignats ll!Dd 

t:igan 

\:li'lt'f*t_,~'Ht~\1 -4M !SAGO 

Wall StrtetJooraol: 

Comey ''"'old restgo 

Ftv<e ldtas (Of' Am.eriea~s 

cap8ble new eybtr nn~ 

llu<ly<;iuHom 

O'.l.H>TFU!J.t'ft'm"Ji:- fn;f W$ !!(",.() 

Gm'ernor ••Y> Dakolll At .... plpeYoe ..m lll<tly 

l>tl!•lko!ldffTromp 

Krantbammer~ Trump 

i:tooeylJtOOU ~ommuy overt 

,1\t>M:i:\tii:'f~l)'.!.Utf~ -·OM :Ml !iCO. 

lrant Rutbless mnnttrer .9cl to r~M1? n&aajru:li 

Fln Nm-s analyst 1'W:Wing 

furiJNC<Imir 

"""'1111• ogrees to be .. ll'lldil<d l£0bamo lJ"Ollls 

dtllltR<Y fur M•nnlng 

l'l.\(1-\ri. -·~Hi loOM AOO 

Pruitt ally defends Trump's EPA 

from 'rubbish' attacks 

sAn ally of Scott P!Ultl, Donald Trump's pick to run Ilia Environmental Protection 

Agoney, delende<l the OkiahQmo alt'>rruoy general on Sunday agoinot "rubbish' 

aHad<s. 

During a radio Interview wllh Jolin Ce!simalidio <>n 970 AM in New YM<, \Illest 

Virginia ai!Qmey ~~"""""' Patliel< Momoey (R) laudad Prulll, eaftlng him a •terrific 

man." 

'Some of !he altaeloi thai havs been launcl>ad ">JOins! him llrnjUI!t m!Ji>ish, • 

Motrisay said, noting that he knows Prui\t io In favor of clean air and clean 

water. 

Envlronmenlala<ivo<;:ates ha"*l!l!!JL"'l..~!!! at Pruitt, who doubts tile aclence of 

climote change and has previously suad !he agency he has been oomir,_ to 

run. 

Momoey Pmisad Pruitt •• a good managar who can 'bring dl$dpllne to the 

bureaucrats,~ 
719 

~l.,~;i;t~!!iffi '!:1;,?.~t: ~f~g~~~if.~i :jn 

';~;~j. :Siii! [:i;ii.~'!liil!t· '!if 'ii;~; .. 

Feilllltem after dinner wi!!l 

Clinton: She has." 

Tile West Vlrsinta attorney g-rallilso praised lhe l'elil ollhe nascent Trump 

administration, saying "people ara pratty exdled"lhat the prssldl!lnt·elect is 

looking 1o shake things up aller eight years ot Presldl!lnl Obama. 

'They're goona move the coontl)lin a different direction, and it's noljost going 

to be till$ uber-reguta!OI)I, stati:il approach,· !Ia said. 

TWEET 

Tllllt$lU.l6lS!C:Sl'ltD'r.N\'f$ti1T£MWA$HINt.-"TQNOC ~tJU.a4~1'U.l :ill~J':~X 

T'IIR OON'i1!N'n0FTIU.$ Sili:A.iiE OW-'lt'.Aifret. lOU.. PVI«LlSKL"'iG<::Om".,.A. SUB$IDlAllY OF Ni-WS!-'OMMI.OOC:ATlON$. tNC'" 
720 

FARMERS IN SUPPORT OF PRUITT 

Zippy Duvall, American Fann Bureau Federation President 

The American Farm Bureau Endorsed Pruitt In A Press Release. President Zippy Duvall 

Said Pruitt ''Will Restore Respect For The Law." "The American Farm Bureau Federation has 

formally endorsed the nomination of Scott Proitt as administrator ofthe U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. AFBF President Zippy Duvall called Pruitt, Oklahoma's attorney general, 'an ideal 

nominee' who 'has profound respect for the laws written by Congress.' ... 'Scott Pruitt will restore 

respect for the law and enforce it fairly,' Duvall said. 'He understands how and when federal power 

should be exercised. We support him because he has demonstrated a keen understanding of the 

devastating economic implications of federal overreach. Scott Pruitt will put the EPA back on track 

and ensure that federal decisions are based on sound science, not politics. He will produce a fair 

regulatory environment that respects the rule oflaw,'" (Ami!I'I08n Fonn Bureau, "Amt!rican F•nn Bureau Strongly Endo,... 

Pruitt For EPA,"\'~ R~l-=a~~ 1/4/17) 

Colin Woodall, VP Of Government 1\ffairs For The National Cattlemen's 

Beq Association 

CoHn Woodall, Of The National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Said Donald Trump's 

Pick Of Scott Pruitt Is A "Home Run." "National Cattlemen's Beef Association's Vice President 

of Governmental Affairs Colin Woodall told Radio OklahomaAg Network Farm Director Ron Hays in 

a recent conversation, this move is a 'home run' in his book. 'We're actually excited about a lot of the 

names we have seen including Scott Pruitt as EPA Head,' Woodall said. 'We know that he is going to 

bring probably a much different approach than what we have seen for quite some time and that's 

spanning multiple administrations,"' ("Trump Hl1s A Home Run For A&ric:ulture With Scott Pruitt No<nln>tion -But Will Dem!.Blook 

The Plate?'" O/.;~qll9rJ.1Jl.H.r!'rJr R(~~'rt, 1/4/17) 

Daryl Lies, President Of17te North Dakota Farm Bureau 

North Dakota Farm Bureau President Daryl lies Wrote Pruitt "Will Bring A Reasoned 

And Balanced Approach Back" To The EPA. 'The nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General 

Scott Proitt to serve as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is a welcome reprieve. 

He will bring a reasoned and balanced approach back to an agency run amok with unnecessary and 

flawed regulations which have done more to hurt our environment than help it. As attorney general, 

he helped develop robust regulations at the state level to implement economically viable conservation 

efforts. He reached across the aisle to pass meaningful regulations to protect Oklahoma waters and 

has aggressively pursed litigation against polluters. He's a stalwart defender of the EPA's mission to 

protect human health and the environment." (llmyl u .. , "Scatt Pruittwm Refocus The EPA's MJmon o~l>d ,u;,.., V.II" -''""" 1/ll/17) • .l' ' ..• ; -~ -9.$> 

• lies Also Said Pruitt Will Emphasize "Collaboration And Innovative ProblemSolving." "The Obama administration's aggressive regulatory agenda has harmed the economy, 

destroyed jobs, and hurt communities across America. Scott Pruitt would pursue a different path, 

one that emphasizes collaboration and innovative problem-soMng. Pruitt has proven that he will 

be a tough, responsible steward. He will safeguard the environment. He will follow law and 

process and distinguish between federal government mandates and that of the states. Most 

important!~, he will ensure that the EPA is charged with protecting all people. Republicans and 

Democrats m the new Congress should work to confirm Scott Pruitt as head of EPA in the same 

bipartisan spirit which he has demonstrated in his home state." (Daryl ues, "Scott Pruitt wm ReiO<USThe EPA's hfi~ Op-Ed, Minot f.h,.l.i!.IJ 1WU'~, t/11/17) 
721 

Oklahoma Secretary Of Agriculture Jim Reese 

Oklahoma Secretary Of Agriculture Jim Reese Said Pruitt "Will Continue EPA's Efforts 

To Protect Our Environment, But With Respect Towards Land Owners, Taxpayers, 

Municipalities, Businesses, And Congress." "Scott Pruitt is a great selection to be 

administrator of EPA. The ultra-green environmental groups are predicting Armageddon over his 

nomination. It won't be Armageddon, but a major dust up would be great .... We need the EPA. They 

have assisted Oklahoma and America in improving and protecting our air, water and land. Scott Pruitt 

will continue EPA's efforts to protect our environment, but with respect towards land owners, 

taxpayers, municipalities, businesses, and Congress." (Oklahoma SecretD!Y Of Agriculture Jim ....... "Secn!taJy of Agriculture 

,Jim Reese Sbltemmt 0o Appointment Of Attorney General Seott Pruitt To BPA," ~~,12/12./16) 

Florida Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam (R) 

Florida Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam Wrote That Pruitt "Has The 

Experience, Understanding Of The Law And Courage To Get" EPA "Back On Tl-ack." 

"Thankfully, appointed EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has the experience, understanding of the law 

and courage to get this out-of-control federal agency back on track .... I witnessed firsthand Pruitt's 

balanced approach to regulation, one that conserves our natural resources and protects the 

environment, while also fostering economic growth and, most important, protecting states' rights. He 

has a clear understanding where it is appropriate for the EPA to assert a role when it is necessary to 

protect our natural resources." (Adam Putnam, "Soott Pruitt Will Unravel Meu At EPA. .. !Jti<m<lv Swthlt:f.1/4!t7) 

Putnam Also Wrote That Pruitt "Can Finally Unravel The Mess Of The EPA." "But this 

nightmare is almost over. With Scott Pruitt in charge, we can finally unravel the mess of the EPA, 

and begin developing and implementing thoughtful policies that will make measurable 

improvements to our natural resources and unleash an energy revolution that will bring jobs and 

higher Wages tO Americans." (Adam Putnam, "Soott Pntitt Will Unravel Mes!i At EPA," r)l•/a.nr(fl.$r~f1tinel, t/ 4/17) 

Tom Buchanan, President Of Oklahoma Farm Bureau 

Oklahoma Farm Bureau President Tom Buchanan Said Pruitt Gives Biro "Hope." "The 

first time I heard Scott Pruitt speak at a Farm Bureau event, I felt hope. Hope that the farming and 

ranching community had an effective advocate that understood we were seeing our livelihood slip 

away at the hands of an imperialist, out -of-control EPA." (Tom Buchanan, ·ouest View' Pruitt Would Be A Friend To Ag 

Atop EPA, .. Op-Ed. t}ut:aJ~Citu J.i'nw,,, t"J./16/16) 

Buchanan: Pruitt Is "A Disciplined Legal Mind." "Scott came across as a disciplined legal 

mind and strategist that had a plan to begin dismantling harmful, unnecessary regulations that 

would liberate the family farm and ranch from overzealous regulators and to focus once again on producing our nation's food supply." crorn S.dulnau, "GuestVU.W: Pnll~ Would Be A Friend ToAg Atop EPA." Op·Ed, Qu<><ic Citu. J'imf1'.12/t6/I6) 

Buchanan: Pruitt Is "A Genuine Man Filled With Integrity." "Beyond these policy 

successes, I have found Pruitt to be a genuine man filled with integrity. He is quick to listen and 

slow to speak. He's a consensus builder that wants to understand the troth and find middle' 

ground." (Tom Buc:hnrum, '"Guest View: PNitt W0t1Jd Be A Friend To Ag Atop EPA," Op--Ed, Qt~~H.:it!J1~-'rl~, t'J/16/l6) 

Iowa Farm Bureau 

The ~owa Farm Bureau Called Pruitt "A Leading Advocate Against An Activist EPA." 

"Pres1den~-~ect Donald Trump chose Scott Pruitt, the attorney general for Oklahoma, to be the next 

EPA Admmistrator. The Iowa Farm Bureau supports the decision, calling Pruitt a leading advocate 

against an activist EPA, specifically noting how he's against the Waters of the U.S. rule." r•owaFDnnBilre4u Suppart1V\l O(NewEPAAdminist:m.tor," SIK' 1\·~ MrJim;.",12/21/t6) 
722 

South Dakota Farm Bureau President Scott VanderWal 

South Dakota Farm Bureau President Scott VanderWal Said Pruitt's Leadership Of The 

EPA Would Be "Good For Both Business And Agriculture." "American Farm Bureau 

Federation officials say the President-elect's pick of Scott Pruitt to head up the EPA is welcome news 

for farmers and ranchers. South Dakota Farm Bureau President Scott VanderWal who also serves as 

AFBF Vice President says Pruitt will be good for both business and agriculture and wm reign in the 

agency's regulatory overreach." (Staff, "Ameri'"• Farm BIUUuSaysEPANomlneeGood For Agriculture," w.v. .. ~.•>h•/161 

• VanderWal Predicts Pruitt's Leadership Will Bring A New "Degree Of Fairness For 

Agriculture." "He says Pruitt wm make sure any EPA regulation doesn't cause undue harm or 

cost to businesses or agriculture. VanderWal thinks they can work with Pruitt to build support for 

renewable fuels and the need for the RFS and other biofuels policies. VanderWal is also optimistic 

Pruitt will bring a new degree of fairness for agriculture." (Staff, "American Farm Bunau.S.,.. SPA Nominee Good For 

Agriculture." .WN.1X,l2{19./I6) 

Alabama Farmers Federation (ALFA) 

Brian Hardin OfThe Alabama Farmers Federation (ALFA) Said Fanners Will Be "Able 

To Do More With Their Land" With Pruitt At EPA. "'Pruitt has a history ai challenging the 

EPA and their overreaching regulations, to challenge and push back what they're trying to do through 

the EPA to impact poultty farmers and other livestock farmers,' [Hardin] said. And with fewer 

regulations, Alabama farmers could do more. 'When farmers are able to do more with their land, 

expand and give them a reason to expand and grow and not be putting that expense or that cost 

toward accommodating additional regulations, that's good for the state,' Hardin said." w1 ... Heney, "ALFA Supj)OJts Tnunp'1 Pick To lend EPA," li'll~<; 10/13/16) 
723 

STATION EIII!NTS 

SlOGS 

• d\adMo~r 

• ju<;fyMou.;h 

• Northeast NE 

Hoops 

• Northeast NE 

Volleyball 

• Northeast NE 

~ 

AMERICAN FARM BUREAU STRONGLY 

ENDORSES PRUITT FOR EPA BY AF6F Press Releas-e 1 j.anua:ry 4, 2017 

The American Farm Sureau FedE'fatioo has formally «r®rsed the nomlna~on of 

Scott Pn.ntt as administrator of the US. fnvironm~ntat Prore<:tion Agency. AFBF 

P~sident Zippy Duvall c.alled Pruitt; Oklahoma's attorney generat, "an IQeal nomltlee" 

who "has profound respect for the laws written by Congttl!$s," 

Duvall today conveyed that endorsi!ment in .a letter to Senate EnWrooment and 

Public Work:s C-omrnfttee Chalrmanjohn Barrasso {R-Wyo.}and ~anking M-efl'lber Tom 

Carpe-r (D·Oet}. ln the !etW. Duvall cited Pruitt's contesting oHhE EPA's: Waters of the 

u.s. rule wtwn he defended "the bipartisan view of Congress that the agQncy has 

itiegafly overst.tl'pped its OOunds and ignored the U5. Supreme Court." 

ThE- fett« also refer~?:nced Pruitt's work to defend Congress regarding thi.'! Ch;an 

Power Plan a-nd tap~and-trade provisions. in which the nomlnee soundly took tht.l' 

view "ttlat Congress has not authorized thi! sweeping atte-mpt by EPA to co-erce atdon 

bythe-stattts."' 

"ln r~cent years, farmers and ranchers have suffered un.dtK burd~nsom.e, 

IJnnecessa.ry .and, too etten, unlawful federal regulations promWgat-ed by the EPA"' 

Duval! said. 'We desper~tely need an admini!Strator who understands the thallenges 

our f.atmers. and ranchers face in produdng safe, wholesome and affordable food fur 

our ni:1tlon and the world!' 

Podtast Categories 

•Ag 

• NI'WS 

• Sports 

• Vlew All Pod<:asts 
724 

Quid links 

Duvall sald Farm Bureau's support for Pruitt is bc$ed on the nomfntfe'S "respect fQr 

thE taw" and his understanding of the- nee.d fur an agency to "''ive within the statutory 

programs Congress has authorized."' 

"Scctt Pruitt wm r-estore respect for thG law and enforce jt fairly/' Ouvatlsald, "He 

understands how and when federal power should be exerdsed. We support him 

because he has dEmonstrated a keen undel"$tandlng of the th'!v-astatlng economic 

lmpfi~:atlon~ of federal overrea(h, Stott Pruitt will pvt the EPA back on track and 

ensure that federal dettsions are based on sound sc.lence, not poUtk:s, He wl!l 

prodwo;:e a fair regulatory environment that respects the rule of law.~ 

<&!20f?~Nvr.si~~.A!f.r/Pit$tr!SW't'Plt~JW>~fewrldfrS; ___ "'_ .. __ 

Share: 

__ n.:.tt;::P;..:flc..l<tc..it:::'•:::d:::ioc...c_oml;_;_a:;:gnc..'w:::.ltw:::.:::•:::V:::.•""'=""'="c..'l:::.•rm-=bii::~'"=""=----·-----·­

Retat-eti Artk:tes 

Stations 

KRVN/M.,~1 

I( NEB R~!WtW>O 

S~11NeMTtp 

S•t.ihmtt.anEwntll..i!( 

AOOutU:'i- KnC l)lovekl.)>Ed by Hollman MWla.l..Lt 
725 

UstentoHay&and~~Soott Pl"..llt'li>!'\Qffl~Nition :ol\e.aotl'r&EPA 01'\toaay'fl Beef 

-

b&b4r !'or today'll shew llll'd ct«'.k IliA our areh+vel!l furo!t1er Beef Bttz:t ~co~ !he gamut Of 

\:heboofoatfts:in~Jm!rytOOey 
726 

Minot Daily News 

BREAKING NEWS Newspaper delivery suspended outside of Minot 

Scott Pruitt will refocus the 

EPA's mission 

North Dakota Farm Bureau has vigorously opposed President Obama's 

activist EPA, and for good reason. In the last eight years, EPA has 

repeatedly targeted North Dakota's economic drivers: agriculture and 

energy. That's why NDFB supports incoming Environmental Protection 

Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt. We believe he will work to curb the 

agency's overreach and end the regulatory nightmare. 

Under the Obama administration, EPA has imposed more than 4,000 

new regulations costing billions of dollars of compliance costs for 

farmers, ranchers and small business owners across the country. 

In 2015, the EPA finalized the Waters of the United States rule, which 

expanded the definition of U.S. waters within the Clean Water Act. Under 

WOTUS, streams, creeks, ditches, brooks and even ponds are all under 

the purview of the EPA. A sizeable portion of private land in North 

Dakota would be under federal jurisdiction. If a fanner wanted to build a 

pond on his property he'd first have to go through the government or face 

heavy fines. This rule is not only unconstitutional, it is a direct attack on 

farmers. 

North Dakota's energy sector has been similarly hard-hit. The EPA has 

published a litany of rules and regulations to fundamentally alter the 

state's energy infrastructure. The EPA Power Plan, for example, requires 

North Dakota to reduce its carbon dioxide emission rate by 44-9 percent,. 
727 

even though North Dakota is one of only 12 states that achieves all of 

EPA's air quality standards for public health. 

The nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to serve as 

administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is a welcome 

reprieve. He will bring a reasoned and balanced approach back to an 

agency run amok with unnecessary and flawed regulations which have 

done more to hurt our environment than help it. 

As attorney general, he helped develop robust regulations at the state 

level to implement economically viable conservation efforts. He reached 

across the aisle to pass meaningful regulations to protect Oklahoma 

waters and has aggressively pursed litigation against polluters. He's a 

stalwart defender of the EPA's mission to protect human health and the 

environment. 

The Obama administration's aggressive regulatory agenda has harmed 

the economy, destroyed jobs, and hurt communities across America. Scott 

Pruitt would pursue a different path, one that emphasizes collaboration 

and innovative problem-solving. Pruitt has proven that he will be a tough, 

responsible steward. He will safeguard the environment. He will follow 

law and process and distinguish between federal government mandates 

and that of the states. Most importantly, he will ensure that the EPA is 

charged with protecting all people. Republicans and Democrats in the 

new Congress should work to confirm Scott Pruitt as head of EPA in the 

same bipartisan spirit which he has demonstrated in his home state. 

Daryl Lies is president of the North Dakota Farm Bureau. 
728 

"WO netrotfle EPA They haveaasialml Qtlshoma and.Ameri:e in~ end~ oor aM', water an41a!ld, ~ PNill wi!:! contln\U.'l 

EPA'seffortstoprotm.:t@.irenvlrOI\!llfmt, butWitht9$ped~slnnd!lWI\tlffl, ~.~ltm,bualne$$00,$1d~,~1ileid 

R-M$8, 

Comment on this article 

Calendar 
729 

Adam Putnam: Scott Pruitt will unravel 

mess at EPA 

Scott Pruitt (Andrew Harnlk I AP) 

By 

My Word columnist 

Adam Putnam: Scott Pruitt will unravel mess at EPA 

JANUARY 4, 2017 

S ince took office in 2009, the has published 

more than 4,000 new rules and finalized 186 new regulations, a legacy of which no one should 

be proud. 

Collectively, the EPA's new regulations require Americans to spend 33 million additional hours filing 

papern'Ork with the federal government and cost Americans more than $344 billion, according to the 
730 

American Action Forum, a center-right policy institute. For that amount of money, we could buy 300 

stealth bombers and 2,000 military tanks and still have plenty left over for a round-trip to the moon. 

In reality, though, this EPA's financial blow affect!~ every American, as it negatively impacts our gross 

domestic product, ldlls thousands of jobs and increases the cost of living in our country. 

Not only do the EPA rules have serious economic consequences, but they are far outside the EPA's 

scope of authority, violating states' rights and, in many cases, violating the U.S. Constitution. The end 

of the Obama EPA cannot come soon enough. 

Thankfully, appointed EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has the experience, understanding of the law 

and courage to get this out-of-control federal agency back on track. 

I joined Oklahoma's Attorney General Pruitt in February 2015 to testify before Congress about one of 

the EPA's worst rules of the past eight years -the Waters of the United States Rule. This rule was, in 

no uncertain tenns, an expansion of federal jurisdiction, infringement on states' rights and an 

unscientific approach to improving the quality oflakes, streams and rivers in the United States. 

The EPA had made claims this rule was a simple clarification of what bodies of water were subject to 

the Clean Water Act, and that these clarifications would have little impact on communities. Its 

actions speak louder than words, however. 

In 2014, the EPA threatened to fine a Wyoming man $75,000 a day in noncompliance penalties over 

a stock pond on hiS eight-acre farm. Anyone can understand why we could not take the EPA for its 

word. 

During this joint congressional hearing of the House and Senate, I witnessed firsthand Pruitt's 

balanced approach to regulation, one that conserves our natural resources and protects the 

environment, while also fostering economic growth and, most important, protecting states' rights. He 

has a clear understanding where it is appropriate for the EPA to assert a role when it is necessary to 

protect our natural resources. 

The numbers don't lie: 4,000 new rules, 33 million hours of paperwork and $334 billion in damages 

resulting from the egregious, overstepping regulations rolled out by Obama's EPA over the past eight 

years. 

But this nightmare is almost over. With Scott Pruitt in charge, we can finally unravel the mess of the 

EPA, and begin developing and implementing thoughtful policies that will make measurable 

improvements to our natural resources and unleash an energy revolution that will bring jobs and 

higher wages to Americans. 
731 

Adam Putnam, a member of the Florida Cabinet, is commissioner of agriculture. 

Copyright C 2017, Orlando Sentinel 

This article is related to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, Barack Obama, Donald 

Trump 
732 

http://qctimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/cotumnlsts/guestlguest·view-prultt-would·be-a-frlendto·ag-atoplartide_2690b847-d 1 cf-55ce-abf9-a 14c28df2a3c.html 

Guest view: Pruitt would be a friend to ag atop EPA 

Tom Buchanan Dec 16,2016 

The first time heard Scott Pruitt speak at a Farm Bureau event, I felt hope. Hope that 

the farming and ranching community had an effective advocate that understood we 

were seeing our livelihood slip away at the hands of an out-of-control EPA. 
733 

Scott came across as a disciplined legal mind and strategist that had a plan to begin 

dismantling harmful, unnecessary regulations that would liberate the family farm and 

ranch from overzealous regulators and to focus once again on producing our nation's 

food supply. 

In the past few years, my neighbors and friends have collectively spent more time 

battling federal regulators trying to assert control over our ponds, dry creeks and 

waterways· and regulators working to thwart our ability to use our principal asset, 

our land, due to an Irrational and outdated Endangered Species Act- than we have 

cutting wheat and selling livestock. 

However, since becoming Oklahoma attorney general, Pruitt has successfully led the 

litigation that led to an Injunction on the proposed Waters of the U.S. Rule, and he 

negotiated agreements that brought common sense and relief for agriculture 

communities over the potential listing of the Lesser Prairie Chicken. These are just a 

few examples of his leadership abilities and his desire to see the rule of law restored. 

Beyond these policy successes, I have found Pruitt to be a genuine man filled with 

integrity. He is quick to listen, and slow to speak. He's a consensus builder that wants 

to understand the truth and find middle ground. 

With regards to the Renewable Fuel Standard, I know there are questions about how 

this will be addressed in the next administration with expiration coming in 2022. 

President-elect Donald Trump has said that he is a strong supporter of the RFS. Based 

on experience, I know Scott Pruitt will bring an open and fair-minded approach to this 

and every issue. 

Get news headlines sent daily to your inbox 

• Email I Sign Up! I 

Most importantly, he will certainly will be a tireless and welcome advocate for 
734 

agriculture. 

I am confident that Attorney Genera! Pruitt would not only bring common sense and 

sanity back to what has become a lawless agency, he would restore that agency to its 

original mission: assisting the states in achieving cleaner air and cleaner water. 

I urge all in the agriculture community to vigorously support his nomination to head 

the EPA by contacting your senators. America's farmers and ranchers will have a more 

prosperous future with Scott Pruitt at the helm. 

Tom Buchanan is president of Oklahoma Farm Bureau. 

Currents 

Photos: Obama honors Biden with surprise ceremony, Presidential 

Medal of Freedom 

THE DOllAR DA!l Y 

If You're a Homeowner, Congress Urges You Claim Their $4,250 Rebate 

by Jan 31st 

Howfllll!:lr How many bombs did the US drop in 2016? 

SGi~"' 7 Cities to Visit on Your NFI. Stadium Tour Getaway 

TodaYstop Preparing for Chinese New Year and more 

Your daily 6: Bad boots make swastika imprint, too much snow and the Barack~Biden bromance 
735 

Iowa Farm Bureau Supportive of 

New EPA Administrator POSTED 4,55 AM, DECEMBER 21, 2016, BY STAFF WRITER 

President-Elect Donald Trump chose Scott Pruitt, the attorney general for 

Oklahoma, to be the next EPA Administrator. 

The Iowa Farm Bureau supports the decision, calling Pruitt a leading advocate 

against an activist EPA, specifically noting how he's against the Waters of the U.S. 

rule. 

But Pruitt is also againstthe Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), a rule forcing blends 

of ethanol into the fuel system. 

Iowa is a leader of ethanol, the nearly 43 plants in the state can produce up to 4 

billion gallons of the fuel. 
736 

IFB President Craig Hill says the RFS was drafted legitimately by congress, so 

implementing it ls not an EPA over reach. 

Hill says, "We have the legislation, we just need to execute and implement the law 

and the EPA has a role in that with limited discretion. So we hope the new 

administrator adheres to the law and follows the rule of law." 

Hill adds, in the confirmation hearing, pro-ethanol Senators like Iowa's Chuck 

Grassley and Joni Ernst will have the opportunity to question Pruitt on his 

Renewable Fuel stances. 

The ECO-friendly Helmet 

:IAN 12, 2017, BY CONNATIX 

ECOHELMET is made out 

of paper, and designed in 

a 'honey-combed' design, 

Intended for the use of 

urban cyclists. 

EPA Nominee to Follow Renewable New EPA Administrator Chosen 

Fuel Standard 
737 

Ustenlive 

Home • N<lm • Story 

NEWS 

MONTH AGO IN AGRl(IRT!JRE 
738 

Am~can Farm Bureau Federation ofilctals say the President-eleCt's pick of Scott Pruitt to head 

up the EPA is welcome news for farmers and ranchers, South Dakota Farm Bureau President 

Scott VanderWal who also serves as AFBF Vice President says Pruitt will be good for both 

business and agriculture and will reign in the agency's regulatory overreach, 

He says Pruitt will make sure any EPA regulation doesn't cause undue harm or cost to businesses 

or agriculture, 

VanderWal thinks they can work with Pruitt to build support for renewable fuels and the need for 

the RFS and other biofuels policies, 

VanderWal Is also optimistic Pruitt will bring a new degree of fairness for agriculture, 

l!!'f:lAX Radio 

Scott VanderWal On EPA Pick 

TAGS: 

STORY© 2016 WNAX-IMAGES © 2016 WNAX 

• SOIINIX:LOUO 

Share 
739 

ALFA supports Trump's pick to 

lead EPA 

ltllllilllfd: Tt~e~tJq. ~ tJth21111, 1:11pm m ~Ttleltlq. ~ tJth m1. Ht pmm 

By ADen Henry,~ t!Mm' 

{Source::~ 12} 

MONTGOMERY. Al (WSFA}- As President-Elect Donald Trump continues to fill his cabinet some organizations, llke ALFA. are 

ke<eplng track of who he appoints to Se<! how these new officials 

could impact Alabama. 

"We're watching that very dosely and there are certain positions that we're very Interested In as it could affect farmers In the state 

of Alabama. one of those Is the EPA administrator. • said Brian 

Hardin, Director of Governmental and Agriculture Programs at 

ALFA. 

Last We<!!<, Trump nominated Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

His official biography describes him as •a leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda." 

Hardin says that's a stance that could also benefit local farmers. 

"Pruitt has a history of challenging the EPA and their overreaching regulations, to challenge and 

puSh back what they're trying to do through the EPA to impact poultry farmers and other 

livestock farmers. • he said. 

And with fewer regulations. Alabama farmers could do more. 

"When farmers are able to do more with their land, expand and give them a reason to expand 

and grow and not be putting that expense or that cost toward accommodating additional 

regulations. that's good for the state," Hardin said. 

At $70 billion a year, agriculture is Alabama's largest Industry. 

But Trump's pick for the person who c01.1ld have the most impact on Alabama's farmers, the 

secretary of Aerlculture. hasn't been announced yet. 

Pruitt would need to be confirmed In the senate to take the EPA job but Democrats haw vowed to fight his appointment 

£0f:~~~1~!i'lllJ:f:I~.AII rights reseM!d. 
740 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

Hearing entitled, "Nomination of Attorney General Scott Pruitt to be 

Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency" 

January 18, 2017 

Questions for the Record for the Honorable E. Scott Pruitt 

Senator Booker: 

1.For many years I have worked with the EPA on the Passaic River superfund 

clean-up project in my home city of Newark. In 2016, the EPA announced an 

historic plan to remediate the Passaic River from toxic chemicals, PCBs, and 

other contaminants that resulted from the production of Agent Orange. The project 

will remove 3.5 million cubic yards of toxic sediment from the lower eight miles of 

the Passaic River in New Jersey-the largest environmental dredging project in 

the history of the federal Superfund program. 

a.lf confirmed do you commit to make implementation of the Passaic River 

cleanup project a priority? 

b.lf confirmed do you commit to carrying out the EPA Region II March 3, 2016 

"Record of Decision" for the Lower 8.3 miles of the Lower Passaic River in a 

timely and efficient manner? 

I am not familiar with the details of the remedy that has been selected for 

the Passaic River Superfund site, but if confirmed, I expect to make clean up 

of contaminated sites one of my priorities and will seek input from 

Congress and relevant stakeholders before taking action in this matter. 

2.As the former Mayor of Newark, I have seen how low-income and minority 

communities living in close proximity to the port of Newark are exposed to high 

levels of air pollution resulting in serious health problems. Across the nation 13 

million people-3.5 million of whom are children-live near major marine ports or 

rail yards. What is your plan to address the pressing environmental justice 

concerns regarding poor air quality near major seaports and other congested 

nodes in our nation's freight network? I have been a champion of the bipartisan 

Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) Program that helps replace diesel 

engines and helps make major sea ports and inland transportation hubs cleaner 

and more efficient. If confirmed can you commit to supporting the DERA program? 

As I committed to you during the meeting in your office, I understand there 

are wide ranging variety of environmental justice issues affecting urban and 

rural America. In fact, as you will recall, I've committed to work with your 

office and visit impacted areas with you. I am also aware that the Diesel 

Emissions Reduction Act Program has received bipartisan support from 
741 

members of the Environment and Public Works Committee. If confirmed, I 

would like to work with members of Congress to best direct resources to 

bipartisan initiatives. 

3. Climate change is one of the most pressing issues currently facing the planet. 

Rising sea levels and extreme weather are currently threatening the safety and 

security of my constituents in New Jersey. Lower income and vulnerable 

communities are disproportionately impacted by the extreme heat and flooding 

events that are becoming more common and more severe. Given the immediate 

and increasing threat to my constituents and to people everywhere, what is your 

plan to address climate change? 

If confirmed, I will work to achieve the objectives of EPA-administered laws 

consistent with the process and framework established by Congress. I will 

work closely with the states in establishing and implementing regulatory 

standards to ensure a meaningful and effective advancement of these 

objectives. 

4. In 2016, troubling reports of lead contamination in school drinking water in 

New Jersey and other areas of the country made clear the urgent need to test 

school drinking water and remediate school drinking water infrastructure that is 

contaminating the water our children drink. 

a. What is your plan to prioritize and expedite the EPA's efforts to eliminate lead 

contamination in school drinking water? 

If confirmed, I will fully carry out EPA's authorities, including its authorities 

under the Safe Drinking Water Act. I note that in the WIIN Act, Congress 

amended the Safe Drinking Water Act to authorize funding for voluntary 

school lead testing. If confirmed and if funding is provided, I will carry out 

that program. 

S.lf you are confirmed, how would EPA respond when a state permits pollution to 

be discharged into a smaller waterway that leads to contamination of drinking 

water supplies in a downstream state? 

If confirmed, I would follow the processes set forth in the Clean Water Act 

and its implementing regulations. 

6. How do you define "environmental justice"? Do you think it's a serious issue? 

I am familiar with the concept of environmental justice. As I testified, the 

Administrator plays an important role regarding environmental justice. 1 

agree that it is important that all Americans be treated equally under the law, 

including the environmental laws. 

2 
742 

7. Decades of peer-reviewed academic and government research demonstrate 

that low-income communities and communities of color disproportionately 

experience environmental burdens compared to other populations in the United 

States. Do you agree with this conclusion? If not, why? 

As I testified at the hearing, I am familiar with the concept of environmental 

justice and believe the Administrator plays an important role in this regard. 

I agree that it is important that all Americans be treated equally under the 

law, including the environmental laws. 

8. What do you believe are the legal obligations of EPA to ensure that recipients 

of EPA funds comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? 

The obligations of recipients of federal funds are defined by the statutes 

and regulations to which you refer. Those statutes and regulations speak 

for themselves. 

9. There are currently hundreds of unresolved Title VI civil rights complaints 

before EPA. Recent reports from EPA's OIG and independent organizations have 

documented EPA's long-standing failure to enforce Title VI. If confirmed, what will 

you do as EPA Administrator to address this? 

If confirmed, I would expect to be briefed by staff and review any 

recommendations by the Office of Inspector General before taking action on 

this issue. 

10. Indigenous communities are consistently targeted for energy extraction, 

nuclear waste, uranium mining and/or oil and natural gas pipelines. How will you 

address this moving forward? 

If confirmed, I will faithfully execute all laws enacted by Congress relating to 

protection of indigenous communities. 

11. Children living in communities of color and low-income communities have the 

highest blood lead levels of all children in the United States, and even some 

developing countries. As Administrator, what steps would you take to address 

this? 

I am concerned about high-blood levels in children and children's health 

generally. As I testified, the Administrator has a significant role regarding 

environmental issues. If confirmed, I would expect to be briefed to learn 

about EPA's legal authorities and ongoing programs and outstanding 

recommendations from the Inspector General, if any, concerning this issue 

before taking action. 

3 
743 

12. As Administrator will you continue to convene and implement the advice and 

recommendations of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, a 

federal advisory committee to EPA since 1993? 

As I testified, the Administrator plays an important role regarding 

environmental justice. I am not personally familiar with the legal authorities 

or activities concerning this advisory committee but I would expect, if 

confirmed, to be briefed by staff about ongoing programs and activities 

before taking any action. If confirmed, I would work to faithfully execute the 

laws EPA is responsible for administering, in order to protect human health 

and the environment for all Americans. If confirmed, I would expect EPA to 

operate in an open and transparent manner, consider the views of 

stakeholders as appropriate, act based on sound science, and follow the 

laws as established by Congress. 

13. As Administrator, will you work to have of EPA's EJ 2020 Plan fully 

implemented? 

As I testified, the Administrator plays an important role regarding 

environmental justice. I am personally unfamiliar with the details of current 

initiatives regarding environmental justice referenced in the question, but I 

would expect, if confirmed, to be briefed by staff about ongoing programs 

and activities before taking any action. 

14. Do you intend to meet minority community members and leaders who have 

concerns about an environmental or health issue within your EPA jurisdiction? 

Yes, if confirmed. 

15. Public participation is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy and a basic 

component of good US policy development and enforcement. What are your plans 

to maximize inclusion and participation in decision-making processes by 

historically marginalized communities of color? 

As I testified, the Administrator plays an important role regarding 

environmental justice. If confirmed, I would expect EPA to operate in an 

open and transparent manner, consider the views of stakeholders as 

appropriate, act based on sound science, and follow the laws as established 

by Congress, including the Civil Rights Act. If confirmed, I would work to 

faithfully execute the laws EPA is responsible for administering, in order to 

protect human health and the environment for all Americans. 

16.111egal solid waste dumping sites where hundreds of thousands of pounds of 

trash and waste tires harbor disease-carrying vectors and pests such as 

mosquitoes, which transmit life threatening diseases like dengue, west Nile and 

zika viruses can be found all over the United States. These dumping sites 

4 
744 

disproportion ally affect low income and minority communities. What will you do to 

address this health threat to these communities? 

I understand the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act prohibits open 

dumping, and under this law states have primary responsibility to regulate 

solid waste disposal. If confirmed, I would expect to be briefed by staff and 

to hear the views of states and other stakeholders before taking any action 

consistent with EPA's legal authorities. 

17.Monitoring of our coastal waters is critical to ensure the health and safety of its 

swimmers and bathers. Many coastal communities, especially low-income and 

minority communities have limited free recreational opportunities other than 

spending the day at the beach. As EPA administrator will you commit to 

continuing EPA's BEACHES program, which provides funding for state water 

quality monitoring programs that ensure healthy and safe recreation? 

I am not personally familiar with the BEACHES program, but I would expect, 

if confirmed, to be briefed by staff about the program. If confirmed, I would 

work to faithfully execute the laws EPA is responsible for administering, 

including those authorizing the BEACHES program, in order to protect 

human health and the environment for all Americans. If confirmed, I would 

expect EPA to operate in an open and transparent manner, consider the 

views of stakeholders as appropriate, act based on sound science, and 

follow the laws as established by Congress. 

18.A 2014 study by scientists at Lawrence National Laboratory at Berkeley 

reported that an estimated 10% of chemicals used in tracking fluid are known to 

be toxic to humans and aquatic life. Fracking practices commonly are conducted 

in fringe low-income and working class communities. Since these taxies are 

known to leach into waterways how will you ensure this is prevented? 

As was affirmed by Congress in drafting the Lautenberg Act, hazard is only 

one characteristic of risk and simply stating a chemical substance has 

toxicity does not mean there is exposure. EPA is tasked with carrying out 

laws as directed by Congress and if I am confirmed, I will use the authorities 

vested in me to protect drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

19. Nationally, 13 percent of the population lives within three miles of a 

Superfund site while in New Jersey, 50 percent of the population lives within three 

miles-the highest percentage in any state. New Jersey has 113 Superfund sites 

on the National Priority List-more than any other state. These sites are the most 

heavily contaminated properties in the country, and are the areas that pose the 

greatest potential risk to public health and the environment. What is your plan to 

strengthen the EPA's superfund program? 

5 
745 

If confirmed, I would expect to prioritize the cleanup of contaminated land. I 

would also expect to be briefed by staff and to receive the views of relevant 

stakeholders on ways to improve the operation of the Superfund program, if 

confirmed. I also understand the Government Accountability Office and the 

EPA Inspector General regularly review the operation and activities of the 

Superfund program and, if confirmed, I would expect to look to their 

recommendations for additional areas for improvement, if confirmed. 

20. If confirmed do you commit to working to include substantial funding for 

Superfund cleanups in the new administration's request for a large national 

infrastructure package? 

If confirmed, I expect to make cleanup of contaminated sites one of my 

priorities. 

21. In 2003, Arkansas and Oklahoma signed an agreement, the Statement on 

Joint Principles to take several measures to reduce phosphorus pollution in the 

Illinois River Watershed. One requirement was for Oklahoma to revise its 0.037 

mg/L phosphorus criterion by 2012, which it did. Why, instead of supporting the 

conclusion of your own state Water Resources Board, did you delay 

implementation an additional three years by negotiating another agreement to 

conduct yet another study? 

The "Statement of Joint Principles and Actions" did not require Oklahoma 

to "revise" its criterion, but rather stated that "Oklahoma will reevaluate 

Oklahoma's .037 mg/1 criterion for total phosphorus in Oklahoma's Scenic 

Rivers by 2012, based on the best scientific information available at that 

time, and with the full, timely inclusion of officials from the State of 

Arkansas representing both point and non point source dischargers." As of 

2012, which was the final date for the reevaluation to occur, Arkansas 

maintained its objection that Oklahoma's .037 mg/1 criterion was 

inappropriate, and not based on the best scientific information available at 

that time. Rather than protract a now decades long dispute that appeared to 

again be headed towards litigation once again, I instead negotiated an 

agreement whereby Arkansas agreed to be finally bound to the results of a 

new study that would use the best scientific information available at the 

time to determine the appropriate criterion. This agreement avoided the 

prospect of more litigation, and ultimately resolved the dispute (with 

Oklahoma getting the stringent standard that it wanted). 

22. In your testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works 

Committee, you said that the 2003 agreement expired during your term? Where 

exactly in the agreement do you see any expiration to the agreement? 

6 
746 

The "Statement of Joint Principles and Actions" stated that "Oklahoma will 

reevaluate Oklahoma's .037 mg/1 criterion for total phosphorus in 

Oklahoma's Scenic Rivers by 2012, based on the best scientific information 

available at that time, and with the full, timely inclusion of officials from the 

State of Arkansas representing both point and non point source 

dischargers." As of 2012, which was the final date for the reevaluation to 

occur, Arkansas maintained its objection that the .037 mg/1 criterion was 

inappropriate, and not based on the best scientific information available at 

that time. Therefore, the 2013 Agreement was reached with Arkansas 

whereby it agreed to be bound by the results of a new study that would use 

the best scientific information available at the time to determine the 

appropriate criterion. 

23.The 2003 agreement says that, "The state of AR and OK, acting through their 

environmental agencies, will reissue the above-specified cities' NPDES permits 

on a normal five (5) year resistance cycle, with the understanding that NPDES 

permits for these point source dischargers to the shared Oklahoma Scenic Rivers 

Watershed issued in the year 2012 or beyond must include phosphorus limits 

stringent enough to meet applicable water quality standards." 

a.Do you agree that the 2003 agreement places obligations on NPDES permitted 

facilities in Arkansas beyond 2012? 

b. Because Oklahoma reevaluated its criterion in 2012, does this section require 

that NPDES permits issued in Arkansas have to be stringent enough to meet 

Oklahoma's .037 mg/L phosphorus water quality standard by 2012 and then 

beyond 2012? 

c. In your testimony before the Environment and Public Works committee, you 

testified that the agreement was "historic" and OK's phosphorus limit would be 

implemented for the first time in history on both sides of the river. Do you agree 

that the .037 mg/L phosphorus criterion was enforceable on both sides of the 

border under the terms of the 2003 agreement? 

Yes. No. No. 

24.1n the 2013 agreement between Arkansas and Oklahoma, you agreed "not to 

institute or maintain administrative enforcement actions, judicial proceedings or 

take regulatory actions contrary to this second statement." 

a. Why did you agree to suspend your enforcement authority? 

b. How many enforcement actions did you suspend? 

c. Do you interpret "judicial proceedings" to include any judgment in the pending 

case your predecessor brought against 14 poultry polluters? Was this agreement 

intended to suspend enforcement of any judicial resolution of that case? 

I did not agree to suspend enforcement authority. The Agreement simply 

acknowledged that neither state would take actions that would violate the 

terms of the agreement. I do not know if any enforcement proceedings were 

suspended, as my office is not the entity that would be involved in such 

7 
747 

actions. I do not interpret "judicial proceedings" in that manner, and the 

agreement was not so intended. 

25. In 2013, you negotiated an agreement with Arkansas that allowed those 

municipal dischargers to continue discharging at 1 mg/1 phosphorus, agreed to 

remove the 2012 deadline for complying with Oklahoma's phosphorus standard, 

and agreed to reopen Oklahoma's phosphorus water quality standard. Since 

Arkansas had already agreed, in 2003, to ensure that its large municipal 

dischargers would fully comply with Oklahoma's phosphorus standard starting in 

2012, why did you let them out of that agreement in 2013? Please identify any 

provision of your 2013 agreement that requires these dischargers to meet 

Oklahoma's phosphorus standards after February 20, 2016. 

a.Since the U.S. EPA approved Oklahoma's Phosphorus Standard in 2003, what 

legal basis do you think Arkansas had to file a lawsuit challenging since the time 

for filing a legal challenge had expired? If you do not believe the time for filing a 

legal challenge had expired, please explain the basis for your belief. 

b.Do you agree that Arkansas is required to ensure that its point source discharge 

permits comply with all Oklahoma water quality standards that have been 

approved by the U.S. EPA under the case of Arkansas v. Oklahoma, including the 

phosphorus standard approved in 2003? Please state the basis for your belief. 

c. The Joint Study Committee authorized by your 2013 agreement recommended 

a standard different from Oklahoma's existing phosphorus water quality standard. 

Please explain whether this recommended standard will supplant Oklahoma's 

current water quality standard, and why you have state that the study confirmed 

Oklahoma's existing 30-day geometric mean 0.037 mg/1 phosphorus standard. 

What is your understanding of the impact of excluding samples taken during 

conditions where surface runoff is the dominant influence of total flow and stream 

ecosystem processes? 

The 2013 Agreement did not "let anyone out" of the 2003 Agreement. 

Arkansas believed that it had legal recourse to resist a criterion to which it 

objected. Without that additional context as to the claims to which you refer, 

I am unable to answer your question relating to time bar of Arkansas' 

hypothetical claims. With regard to Arkansas's obligations, pursuant to the 

2013 Agreement, Arkansas is now obligated to adopt and implement a 

stringent phosphorus standard. The study "used a weight of evidence 

approach to recommend a six-month average total phosphorus level of not 

to exceed 0.035 milligrams per liter based on water samples collected 

during critical conditions was necessary[.]" As I've stated, this confirmed 

that Oklahoma's 0.037mgll standard was--despite Arkansas's arguments 

that it was unnecessarily stringent--necessary to protect the watershed. I 

am not familiar with the "the impact of excluding samples taken during 

conditions where surface runoff is the dominant influence of total flow and 

stream ecosystem processes," to which you refer, and thus cannot offer an 

opinion on that statement. 

8 
748 

26. You stated in your EPW Questionnaire that you negotiated an agreement with 

Arkansas to reduce phosphorus pollution in the Illinois River watershed that was 

occurring as a result of poultry growers. Please explain how the agreement 

reduces pollution from poultry growers. 

Runoff from poultry farms contribute to increased phosphorous levels in 

the Illinois River. The agreement imposed on Arkansas the requirement that 

it adopt a stringent phosphorous standard, which will necessarily require 

Arkansas to stringently regulate sources of phosphorous, such as poultry 

farms, in order to meet that standard. 

27. You stated that Oklahoma's phosphorus standard was not being enforced on 

the Arkansas side of the border prior to your 2013 Agreement. Are you aware 

that, in April of 2009, the EPA required the Arkansas Department of 

Environmental Quality to ensure that the discharge permit for the Northwest 

Arkansas Conservation Authority include an enforceable final effluent limitation for 

phosphorus stringent enough to meet Oklahoma's phosphorus water standard by 

June 30, 2012, and that the final NPDES permit for Northwest Arkansas 

Conservation Authority issued by Arkansas included that requirement? Given the 

fact that Oklahoma's phosphorus standard was being enforced in Arkansas prior 

to your 2013 agreement, please explain the benefit to Oklahoma from entering 

into the agreement. 

However, upon reviewing it, I note that Arkansas reserved the right to revise 

the 0.1 mg/1 phosphorus permit limit ("The Department reserves the right to 

revise the permit limit of 0.1 mg/1 for Total Phosphorus upon submission of 

data which indicates that a Total Phosphorus limit other than 0.1 mg/1 is 

appropriate"). Further, I am aware that Arkansas continued to dispute the 

validity of Oklahoma's t0.037 mg/limit, a dispute that is now resolved with 

Arkansas agreeing that 0.037 mg/1 phosphorus standard is appropriate. 

That agreement greatly benefits Oklahoma. 

28. It appears that the last call or meeting that EPA has on the long delayed 

TMDL for the Illinois River and Lake Tenkiller watersheds occurred on November 

14, 2013. Please explain how your 2013 Agreement is related to the TMDL or 

cleanup of Lake Tenkiller. What steps have you taken with the U.S. EPA to 

encourage completion of the Illinois River and Lake Ten killer TMDLs and oppose 

further delay? 

I would certainly encourage the EPA to fulfill any obligations it might have 

to complete those TMDLs, but I have not taken any legal actions to force the 

EPA todoso. 

9 
749 

29. What steps have you taken to implement and enforce the 0.037 mg/L criterion 

for phosphorus pollution just approved by the Scenic Rivers Joint Commission in 

Oklahoma? What measures has Arkansas agreed to in light of the study results? 

I have not personally taken any steps to implement or enforce that water 

quality standard, because the authority to do so is vested in Oklahoma's 

environmental regulators, such as the Oklahoma Department of 

Environmental Quality, and Oklahoma Water Resources Board. 

30.1n 1992 the US Supreme Court in Arkansas v Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91 (1992), 

resolved a lawsuit between Oklahoma and Arkansas related to water pollution in 

the Illinois River and held that upriver states must comply with water quality 

standards that are adopted by downriver states and approved by EPA. After that 

Supreme Court decision, effective July 1, 2002, Oklahoma adopted a nutrient 

criterion for total phosphorous of .037 mg/1 for all Oklahoma water bodies 

designated as Scenic Rivers, codified at Oklahoma Administrative Code 785:45-5-

19(c)(2). This new water quality standard had a ten year phase in period before 

full compliance was required on June 30, 2012. EPA approved Oklahoma's .037 

mg/1 phosphorous standard, as codified at Oklahoma Administrative Code 785:45-

5-19(c)(2), on December 29, 2003. 

a. Given this history, do you agree that as of July 1, 2012 Oklahoma's .037 mg/1 

phosphorous standard was in effect and was binding on upriver states such as 

Arkansas? 

b. More specifically, do you agree that as of July 1, 2012 compliance with 

Oklahoma's .037 mg/1 phosphorous standard was required for the portion of the 

Illinois River in Arkansas? 

c. If you do not agree that as of July 1, 2012 compliance with Oklahoma's .037 

mg/1 phosphorous standard was required for the portion of the Illinois River in 

Arkansas, please explain the legal basis for your disagreement. 

Oklahoma water quality standards do not automatically apply to upstream 

dischargers in other states. In 1992, in Arkansas v. Oklahoma, a case that 

pre-dated Arkansas' authorization to carry out its own Clean Water Act 

permitting program, the Supreme Court held that it was in EPA's discretion 

to issue a permit for a publicly owned treatment plant in Fayetteville, 

Arkansas that required compliance with downstream (Oklahoma) water 

quality standards. The Court took no position regarding when the Clean 

Water Act compelled such compliance, only that it was reasonable for EPA 

to assume that a section 401 water quality certification applied to federally 

issued NPDES permits. Please note that section 401 applies only to federal 

permits and as such would not apply to an Arkansas permit now that 

Arkansas is an authorized state. Under 40 CFR 131.10 state water quality 

standards are supposed to ensure "attainment and maintenance" 

of standards applicable to downstream states, but EPA is the arbiter of that 

when it approves state standards. Under section 402(b) of the Clean Water 

Act a state that is downstream of an authorized state gets notice of permits 

10 
750 

and the opportunity to file recommendations, but has no veto authority. 

Under section 402(d) ofthe CWA, EPA has the authority to review state 

issued permits and impose additional conditions. Interpreting this section, 

in International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481,493,490-91 (1987), the 

Supreme Court found that the only law applicable to a point source in an 

authorized state is the law of the source state. A downstream state is 

subordinate to a source state and its only recourse it to ask EPA to veto or 

condition a permit. 

31. Please identify any investigations and/or lawsuits the Office of Attorney 

General initiated after January 17, 2011 to address groundwater contamination 

associated with swine animal feeding operations and any publicly available data in 

your possession regarding levels of groundwater contamination at any swine 

animal feeding operations, as well as any communications that the Office of 

Attorney General has had with the owners or operators of swine animal feeding 

operations after January 17, 2011. 

The Oklahoma Department of Agriculture regulates Concentrated Animal 

Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and swine operations generally under the 

Oklahoma Agriculture and Environmental codes. The Oklahoma 

Department of Agriculture and the Oklahoma Office of the Attorney General 

already had several large swine feeding operations under Consent Decree 

or Settlement Agreement by the time I took office in 2011. (Hanor Roberts & 

Seaboard Foods, for example) The terms ofthose Consent Decrees and 

Settlement Agreements required the swine operations to make regular 

reports to the Department of Agriculture and the Office of the Attorney 

General. These reports included monitoring well data, lagoon data and other 

terms to be carried out by the operators pursuant to the agreements. My 

office has continued to monitor these operations to confirm compliance 

with the Consent Decree and Settlement Agreements. 

II 
751 

Senator Cardin: 

1. Please provide your definition of EPA's "activist agenda" as stated on your 

professional biography on the State of Oklahoma's official website. Please provide 

a list of all environmental laws and regulations that you consider to comprise the 

federal agency's "activist agenda" and how each environmental law or regulation 

listed in response to this question meets this definition. 

I firmly believe that the EPA has a vital role, but it must do so within the 

bounds of its legal authority. The actions undertaken by the Office of 

Attorney General have been out of concern that EPA had exceeded its legal 

authority in those specific actions, not out of animosity toward the mission 

of the Agency or any specific regulation or statute. Regulations that are not 

on solid legal foundation and that cannot survive judicial review will not 

result in environmental protections. 

2. For what purpose other than to handle the State of Oklahoma's legal 

challenges against the EPA did you create the Federalism Unit and defund the 

Environmental Protection Unit? 

The Federalism Unit within the Attorney General's Office serves to protect 

the State of Oklahoma's sovereign interests in our republican form of 

government, with a particular focus on issues related to the vertical and 

horizontal separation of powers demanded by our Constitution. It is headed 

by the Solicitor General. With regard to the environmental protection unit, it 

is misleading to say that it was "defunded." Consistent with the practice of 

every Attorney General save one, I determined that a standalone unit was 

operationally inefficient. I opted to combine the Environmental Protection 

Unit and the Consumer Protection Unit into a single unit called the "Public 

Protection Unit." The Public Protection Unit continued the work of the 

Environmental Protection Unit, and that work continues to this day, headed 

by the very same attorney who worked in the Environmental Protection Unit 

under the prior Attorney General. 

3.Do you intend to create a Federalism Unit within the EPA similar to 

Oklahoma's? Explain why or why not. 

My understanding is that the Department of Justice, working in coordination 

with the EPA Office of General Counsel, represents EPA in litigation, and 

would thus serve to protect such federalism related interests. 

12 
752 

4.Would you support budget cuts to the EPA in similar scope (10% or higher) to 

those made to Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality appropriations 

since FY20091

? 

I am not familiar with Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality's 

budget. I have no first-hand knowledge of EPA's development of its FY 2018 

budget request. If confirmed, I look forward to working with EPA's budget 

staff and program offices and officials with the Office of Management and 

Budget on EPA's request. I will work to ensure that the limited resources 

appropriated to EPA by Congress are managed wisely in pursuit of that 

important mission and in accordance with all applicable legal authorities. 

5. Of the lawsuits filed against the EPA in which you participated personally and 

substantially as Attorney General for Oklahoma, do you intend to recuse yourself 

from decision making regarding litigation in which you represented the State of 

Oklahoma as an adversarial party? Do you intend to recuse yourself for the 

entirety of each case? 

As a lawyer, I am bound by the rules of professional conduct not to "switch 

sides" in any litigation in which I represented the State of Oklahoma, unless 

my former client gives its informed consent. 

6.0o you believe the State of Oklahoma and the EPA should be regarded as the 

same or different "clients" for conflicts of interest purposes? Explain why or why 

not. 

The State of Oklahoma and the federal government are separate sovereign 

authorities; representing one does not entail representing the other. In 

addition, while the State of Oklahoma has been my client as a lawyer during 

my service as Attorney General, if confirmed as EPA Administrator I will not 

be acting as a lawyer with clients. 

?.The American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct, 

Rule 1.1, Special Conflicts Of Interest for Former and Current Government 

Officers and Employees, Comment 5 discusses the balancing of interests. On the 

one hand, where the successive clients are a government agency and another 

client, public or private, the risk exists that power or discretion vested in that 

agency might be used for the special benefit of the other client. A lawyer should 

not be in a position where benefit to the other client might affect performance of 

the lawyer's professional functions on behalf of the government. Also, unfair 

advantage could accrue to the other client by reason of access to confidential 

government information about the client's adversary obtainable only through the 

lawyer's government service. In the spirit of Rule 1.11, what previous lawsuits 

1 http:l/okpolicy.nrg/wp·contPnt/uploads/201 6 Budget HiGhlights.pdf!997616#page 7&x42044 

13 
753 

might affect your performance of the Administrator's professional functions on 

behalf of the EPA? 

Because I will follow the guidance of ethics officials and my own 

professional responsibilities in determining whether and how to participate 

in a particular matter, I do not expect any previous lawsuits to adversely 

affect my performance as EPA Administrator if confirmed. 

8.0n the other hand, the rules governing lawyers presently or formerly employed 

by a government agency should not be so restrictive as to inhibit transfer of 

employment to and from the government. The government has a legitimate need 

to attract qualified lawyers as well as to maintain high ethical standards. Thus a 

former government lawyer is disqualified only from particular matters in which the 

lawyer participated personally and substantially. The provisions for screening and 

waiver in paragraph (b) are necessary to prevent the disqualification rule from 

imposing too severe a deterrent against entering public service. The limitation of 

disqualification in paragraphs (a)(2) and (d)(2) to matters involving a specific party 

or parties, rather than extending disqualification to all substantive issues on which 

the lawyer worked, serves a similar function. Please provide a list of federal 

lawsuits filed against the EPA in which you participated personally and 

substantially as Attorney General for Oklahoma. 

As Attorney General of Oklahoma, I have participated personally and 

substantially in the following suits against the EPA: 

EME Homer City Generation v. EPA, No. 12-1182 (U.S.S.C.) 

Michigan v. EPA, No. 14-46 (U.S.S.C.) 

Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, Nos.14-1112, 14-1151 (D.C. Cir.) 

Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, Nos. 15-1385, 15-1392, 15-1490, 15-

1491 & 15-1494 (D.C. Cir.) 

Oklahoma v. EPA, Nos.12-9526, 12-9527 (1Oth Cir.) 

Oklahoma ex rei. Pruitt v. EPA, No. 16-5038 (10th Cir.). 

Oklahoma ex rei. Pruitt v. McCarthy, No. 15-cv-369 (N.D. Okla.). 

Oklahoma v EPA, No, 13-cv-00726 (W.O. Okla.) 

West Virginia v. EPA, No. 14-1146 (D.C. Cir.) 

West Virginia v. EPA, No. 16-1264 (D.C. Cir.) 

9.Do you accept a screen is appropriate for EPA strategic decisions specific to 

those lawsuits in which you represented an adversarial party? Explain why or why 

not. 

I will consult with relevant ethics officials and review relevant rules of 

professional conduct to determine whether a screen is appropriate in a 

particular matter. 

10.Comment 5 discusses a lawyer who moves between different government 

entities. When a lawyer has been employed by one government agency and then 

14 
754 

moves to a second government agency, it may be appropriate to treat that second 

agency as another client for purposes of this Rule, as when a lawyer is employed 

by a city and subsequently is employed by a federal agency. However, because 

the conflict of interest is governed by paragraph (d), the latter agency is not 

required to screen the lawyer as paragraph (b) requires a law firm to do. The 

question of whether two government agencies should be regarded as the same or 

different clients for conflict of interest purposes is beyond the scope of these 

Rules. Do you believe two government agencies-the State of Oklahoma and the 

EPA-should be regarded as the same or different "clients" for conflicts of interest 

purposes? Explain why or why not. 

As explained above, the State of Oklahoma and the federal government are 

separate sovereign authorities. While the State of Oklahoma was my client 

as a lawyer, if confirmed as EPA Administrator I will not be acting as a 

lawyer with clients. 

11.How might the spirit of Rule 1.11 's conflicts of interest provisions apply if those 

government entities were adversarial parties to a lawsuit? 

If two government entities are adversarial parties to a lawsuit, then under 

ABA Model Rule 1.11 a lawyer's previous representation of one entity in the 

litigation will preclude his later representation of the other entity in the same 

litigation, unless the former client gives its informed consent. As explained 

above, if confirmed as EPA Administrator I will not be acting as a lawyer 

with clients. 

12.ABA Rule 1. 7 Conflict Of Interest: Current Clients provides that a "lawyer shall 

not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of 

interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if the representation of one client 

will be directly adverse to another client; or there is a significant risk that the 

representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's 

responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal 

interest of the lawyer." In the spirit of Rule 1.7, do you reasonably believe that you 

will be able to provide competent and diligent leadership to the EPA, an agency 

you "don't like" and have sued several times? Explain why or why not. 

I will provide diligent and competent leadership to the EPA if confirmed as 

Administrator. As I explained in my testimony to the Committee, I am a firm 

believer in the EPA's mission to protect the environment and look forward 

to the opportunity to lead the agency to help provide our future generations 

with a better and healthier environment. 

13.Piease explain how your litigation position in each case is or is not at odds with 

the mission of the EPA, to protect human health protect human health and the 

environment-air, water, and land. 

15 
755 

The EPA's mission is defined by the laws passed by Congress granting it 

the authority to act. Any action by the EPA that exceeds the authority 

granted to it by Congress, by definition, cannot be consistent with the 

Agency's mission. In each case filed against the EPA, in the view of the 

State of Oklahoma, the EPA had acted in excess of the authority granted to 

it by Congress. 

14.Do you accept that EPA, state, local and tribal agencies work together to 

ensure compliance with environmental laws passed by Congress, state 

legislatures and tribal governments? 

I agree it is essential for the federal government, state governments, and 

tribal governments to work together to provide the environmental protection 

that our laws demand and that the American people deserve. As I explained 

in my testimony to the Committee, I strongly support cooperative 

federalism. If confirmed, I will make every effort to partner with the EPA's 

counterparts in state, local, and tribal governments to further these goals. 

15.1n 2005, former Attorney General Drew Edmondson filed a federal lawsuit in 

2005 seeking to prohibit the spreading of chicken waste over land in the Illinois 

River Basin in northeastern Oklahoma. Companies named in State of Oklahoma 

v. Tyson Foods Inc. (No. 4:05-cv-00329) include Tyson Foods Inc., Tyson Poultry 

Inc., Tyson Chicken Inc., Cobb-Vantress Inc., Cal-Maine Foods Inc., Cargill Inc., 

Cargill Turkey Production L.L.C., George's Inc., George's Farms Inc., Peterson 

Farms Inc., Simmons Foods Inc., Cal-Maine Farms Inc. and Willow Brook Foods 

Inc. On December 9, 2015, the State of Oklahoma filed brief amici curiae along 

with 21 other states in support of the petitioners in American Farm Bureau 

Federation v. EPA (No. 15-599). The Tyson Foods defendants did not participate 

in the Bay TMDL lawsuit, and the American Farm Bureau was not a party to the 

Oklahoma suit. However, Tyson Foods Inc., headquartered in Springdale, 

Arkansas-the largest poultry producing company in the world-is a member of 

the Arkansas Farm Bureau. Do you accept that the American Farm Bureau, a 

national organization, represents the interests of the Arkansas Farm Bureau and 

its members, including Tyson Foods? Explain why or why not. 

It is my understanding that the American Farm Bureau Federation is a 

distinct corporate entity from the Arkansas Farm Bureau, which is a distinct 

corporate entity from Tyson Foods. Accordingly, I do not believe one can 

ignore corporate form and conflate the American Farm Bureau Federation 

with either the Arkansas Farm Bureau or Tyson Foods. I observe that the 

Pennsylvania Farm Bureau filed suit against EPA in the challenge to the 

Chesapeake Bay TMDL on its own behalf, notwithstanding the fact that 

American Farm Bureau Federation also was a plaintiff. 

16.1n 2013, despite the lack of a verdict in the Tyson Foods case, you added the 

State of Oklahoma to the American Farm Bureau/poultry industry backed lawsuit 

16 
756 

against the EPA's efforts to enforce a TMDL to restore water quality in the 

Chesapeake Bay. You sided with the American Farm Bureau, the Fertilizer 

Institute, the National Chicken Council, the National Pork Producers Council and 

other farming interests. The lawsuit claimed EPA was exceeding its authority in 

enforcing "total maximum daily load," or TMDL, standards in Chesapeake Bay, 

limitations on nitrogen, phosphorus and sediments. In what ways did you balance 

the interests of your client, the State of Oklahoma, as Counsel for Amicus Curiae 

in American Farm Bureau while Tyson Foods, in which you represented the State 

of Oklahoma as Plaintiff, was ongoing? 

These are two different lawsuits regarding different parties and different 

matters. There also is no issue conflict because the issues raised in the two 

lawsuits also are distinct. 

17.1n 2016, more than six years after arguments concluded in Tyson Foods, there 

has been no final ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Gregory K. Frizzell. Do you 

find the six-year delay in Tyson Foods to be acceptable or reasonable, and if so, 

why? 

It would not be appropriate for me as an attorney to comment on the 

acceptable ness or reasonableness of the actions of a judge before whom 

the Office of the Attorney General has a pending case. 

18.Piease provide a list of all confidential government documents related to the 

Chesapeake Bay TMDL to which you would not have access but for your status 

as counsel to the State of Oklahoma as amicus curiae in American Farm Bureau. 

I am not aware of any such documents. A request for such documents can 

be made to the Office of the Attorney General pursuant to the Oklahoma 

Open Records Act. 

19.1f the Supreme Court were to grant certiorari in American Farm Bureau, or a 

case like it challenging the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, how would you direct the 

EPA as Administrator to rigorously defend its own rule? 

Any TMOL should be a cooperative effort. If confirmed as EPA Administrator 

and if the litigation challenging the Chesapeake Bay TMOL reached the 

Supreme Court during my time in office, I would expect to consult with the 

States and other interested stakeholders about the issues raised in such 

litigation. 

20.1n what ways did you balance the interests of your client, the State of 

Oklahoma, as Amicus Curiae in American Farm Bureau and as Plaintiff in Tyson 

Foods? 

17 
757 

These are two different lawsuits regarding different parties and different 

matters. As Attorney General of Oklahoma, I represent the interests of the 

State of Oklahoma when I seek to ensure that federal law is followed such 

that Oklahoma retains its sovereign authority to regulate where federal law 

allows such state regulation .. 

21.Do you accept that the Chesapeake Bay TMDL could still fail to significantly 

reduce pollution flowing to the Chesapeake Bay if the EPA steps back from its 

role in holding states accountable for their cleanup commitments? Explain why or 

why not. 

It is my understanding that recent quality data shows that the water quality 

of the Chesapeake Bay is improving. Further, it is my understanding that the 

United States Geological Survey and other researchers have found that 

the time lag between measures taken on the ground and water quality 

response can be years, decades or even longer. Accordingly, today's 

improvements in water quality are likely the result of measures taken before 

the effective date of the Bay TMDL. These measures, as well as state plans 

to require treatment plants upgrades that also pre-date the effective date of 

the Bay TMDL, will continue to improve water quality. That said, the Bay 

TMDL represents a cooperative effort of all states in the watershed and EPA 

has a role in overseeing its implementation. 

22.The TMDL approach hinges on numeric water quality standards that set a 

qualitative number for pollution limits, rather than a qualitative description of how 

healthy waters should be. As Administrator, how would you promote effective 

numeric standards? 

I agree with the Mach 2011 nutrient framework issued by the Assistant 

Administrator for the Office of Water entitled "Working in Partnership with 

States to Address Phosphorus and Nitrogen Pollution through Use of a 

Framework for State Nutrient Reductions," which prioritizes state action to 

encourage on the ground activities over establishment of numeric nutrient 

limits. According to the State of Florida, based on their experience with the 

imposition of federal numeric nutrient limits, controversy over the validity of 

a number can actually delay pollutant reduction activities, delaying water 

quality improvements. 

23.1n the Mississippi River watershed, the Obama Administration defended a 

lawsuit against the EPA from environmentalists seeking numeric nutrient criteria. 

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ruled in favor 

of the EPA, finding "Presumably, there is a point in time at which the agency will 

have abused its great discretion by refusing to concede that the current approach 

[ ... ] is simply not going to work." But for now, "EPA is entitled to judgment as a 

18 
758 

matter of law in its favor." As Administrator, would you continue to waste 

resources on a qualitative, voluntary approach? 

I was not involved in the litigation your reference, and am not familiar with 

the details of the case. 

24.As Administrator, do you intend to make enforcement of the Chesapeake Bay 

cleanup plan a priority? How? Do you acknowledge that it will be even more 

difficult to make progress without EPA? 

The Chesapeake Bay TMDL has been upheld by the Third Circuit Court of 

Appeals. If confirmed, I will continue to enforce the law and will continue 

EPA's leadership role as a member of the Chesapeake Bay Executive 

Council. I agree that progress would be difficult without a collaborative 

process. 

25.Would you deny the political will in the states of the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed to protect the Bay? 

I would listen to the views of all interested stakeholders including the 

States. 

26.1n a 2013 speech, you said "There are issues with respect to clean water and 

air that cross state lines. There is a role, and I think it's important for 

conservatives, for us to recognize, that though I don't like the EPA[ ... ) I think it's 

not good for us to say that the EPA doesn't have any role." How would you 

characterize the EPA's role in mediating cross-state air and water pollution 

disputes? 

I certainly agree that EPA plays a leadership role in mediating cross-state 

air and water pollution disputes. 

27.1n 1992, the Supreme Court held in Arkansas v. Oklahoma (No. 90-1262), a 

case challenging the EPA's issuance of a National Pollution Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permit to a publicly owned treatment plant in Fayetteville, 

Arkansas for a discharge into a river flowing into Oklahoma, that the Clean Water 

Act authorizes the EPA to require that point sources in upstream states not violate 

water quality standards in downstream states. 2 Is the EPA interpreting this 

Supreme Court precedent correctly? If not, how would you change its 

interpretation through NPDES? 

2 https://www.ejugnv/sitcs/productinn/t11Ps/2Q15-01 /dncuments(waterpollution-ludwiszewskjmemo.pdf 

19 
759 

Arkansas v. Oklahoma involved an EPA-issued permit because at the time 

of the litigation the Fayetteville wastewater treatment plant began operation 

Arkansas did not have an approved state permitting program. Oklahoma is 

authorized to implement its own NPDES permitting program, in lieu of the 

federal program. As such, I am not familiar with how EPA is applying 

Arkansas v. Oklahoma when it issues permits in the handful of states 

without such approved permitting programs. 

28.After the Arkansas decision, you agreed to a three-year delay in 2012 to allow 

for an independent study of the science behind the standard. What specific factors 

motivated your decision to delay enforcement of Oklahoma's standard? 

The "Second Statement of Joint Principles and Actions" that Oklahoma 

entered into with Arkansas in 2012 actually required that "[t]he States, 

through the appropriate Parties, will continue to require existing point 

source dischargers to the Illinois River Watershed with a design capacity of 

greater than 1 MGD to operate under existing National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System ("NPDES") permits reflecting an effluent limit for total 

phosphorus of not more than I mg/L based upon a 30 day average, 

assuming the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does not object" and 

likewise required that "Parties for both States will continue cooperative 

efforts to improve and protect water quality in the Scenic Rivers." 

29.Piease provide all communications you had had with representatives of 

agricultural and other companies regarding water quality litigation between 

Arkansas and Oklahoma. 

Such communications can be requested from the Oklahoma Office of the 

Attorney General through a request made to that office pursuant to the 

Oklahoma Open Records Act. 

30.Do you commit to fully apply and enforce the Good Neighbor provision if 

confirmed as EPA Administrator? 

Yes. If I am confirmed as Administrator, I will exercise my authority in this 

area consistent with Congress's intent in enacting the Act. Specifically with 

respect to Section 110(a)(2)(D) and the "good neighbor" obligations of 

Section 110, I intend to engage in a transparent process that will allow 

states to have a meaningful opportunity to understand their obligations with 

regard to reducing emissions that cause or contribute to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance in other states through the SIP process and 

to act consistent with my authority under Section 110(c) if states fail to do 

so. 

31.What is your understanding of the role of climate change in algal blooms? 

20 
760 

EPA identifies the following as causes of harmful algal blooms: sunlight, 

slow-moving water, and excess nutrients. For climate change to have a role, 

it would first have to have an impact on one of these three causes. 

32.Please provide a list of water treatment plants under consent order from the 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality during your tenure as Attorney 

General. Please identity funding sources other than federal funding that are 

available to bring these treatment plants into compliance with the Clean Water 

Act. 

This question should be directed to the Oklahoma Department of 

Environmental Quality, as I have no personal knowledge of such matters. 

33.0f the 1,677 public water supplies under the purview of the Oklahoma 

Department of Environmental Quality, 19 had recent elevated detections of lead in 

March, 2016. Please describe any action you took to address lead contamination 

as Attorney General. 

As the question indicates, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental 

Quality as opposed to the Office of Attorney General has primary 

responsibility for implementing and enforcing environmental laws in 

Oklahoma. 

34.When more than 10 percent of tap water samples in a local system contain 

lead levels of at least 15 parts per billion, the state steps in to review the water 

system's treatment for corrosive properties and update the sampling schedule as 

necessary. How have budget cuts to the Oklahoma Department of Environmental 

Quality impacted sampling? 

I have no personal knowledge of the Oklahoma Department of 

Environmental Quality's budget, or how any budget cuts may have impacted 

that office. 

35.EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) agree that 

there is no known safe level of lead in a child's blood. Lead is harmful to health, 

especially for children. Do you accept that there is no safe level of lead in a child's 

blood? 

I am concerned about the health of children. I have not myself reviewed the 

scientific studies correlating blood lead levels to impacts in children. 

However, it is my understanding that neither EPA nor CDC have identified a 

"safe" level of exposure, but instead have adopted levels appropriate for 

action under their specific statutory authorities. 

21 
761 

36.Piease provide any information relating to enforcement actions for Lead and 

Copper Rule violations undertaken during your tenure as Attorney General for 

Oklahoma. 

Such enforcement actions would have been undertaken by Oklahoma's 

environmental and water regulators, at agencies like the Oklahoma 

Department of Environmental Quality or the Oklahoma Water Resources 

Board. This question should be directed to those agencies so that can 

describe to you the relevant actions taken by the State of Oklahoma. 

37.The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires EPA to establish and enforce 

standards that public drinking water systems must follow. EPA delegates primary 

enforcement responsibility (also called primacy) for public water systems to states 

and tribes if they meet certain requirements. In a letter to Oklahoma Secretary of 

the Environment Gary Sherrer, EPA Regional Administer Ron Curry said the State 

had until June 1, 2013 to fully implement the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Disinfectants 

and Disinfection Byproducts Rules. Please provide all information related to 

Oklahoma's primacy under the Public Water System Supervision Program during 

your tenure as Attorney General. 

As your question indicates, such matters would be within the purview of 

Oklahoma's environmental regulators, not the Office of Attorney of General. 

38.Do you concur that persistent drinking water safety problems indicate the need 

to strengthen, not weaken, the federal law designed to ensure the safety of 

Americans' drinking water? Explain why or why not. 

I believe that persistent drinking water problems largely stem from a failure 

to comply with current laws and regulations. If confirmed, I will work to 

increase compliance with the law, which will require effective enforcement 

and oversight, technical assistance, and infrastructure improvements. It 

also may require changes to existing regulations to improve oversight tools 

and eliminate ambiguities that lead to compliance issues. 

39.At the same time, deteriorated lead paint and elevated levels of leadcontaminated house dust are present in an estimated 24 million U.S. houses, 

according the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The long-term effects 

that lead poisoning can cause include learning disabilities, hyperactivity, impaired 

hearing and brain damage. Infants and young children are most susceptible to 

lead poisoning. EPA's Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (RRP Rule) 

requires that firms performing renovation, repair, and painting projects that disturb 

lead-based paint in homes, child care facilities and pre-schools built before 1978 

have their firm certified by EPA (or an EPA authorized State), use certified 

renovators who are trained by EPA-approved training providers and follow leadsafe work practices. Do you believe the RRP Rule should be a voluntary 

standard? Explain why or why not. 

22 
762 

No. Oklahoma is an authorized state. The Oklahoma Lead-Based Paint 

Management Act designates the Department of Environmental Quality as 

the official agency for implementing the Lead-Based Paint Management 

Program. 

40.EPA is addressing lead contamination and resulting hazards under these laws 

in many ways, including by issuing and enforcing regulations. Do you find this 

regulatory authority appropriate for EPA, and not the States? Why or why not. 

It is appropriate for EPA to faithfully enforce federal law. With respect to the 

RRP rule, it is my understanding that there have been issues with EPA 

implementation of the RRP rule in states that are not authorized due to a 

delays in certifying firms. 

41. Title IV of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as well as other 

authorities in the Residential lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, 

directs EPA to regulate lead-based paint hazards. As Administrator, how would 

you implement Title IV of TSCA? 

Congress enacted both TSCA Title IV to create a national program to 

achieve the national goal of eliminating lead-based paint hazards from 

housing as expeditiously as possible and TSCA Title V to authorize the 

establishment of a state grant program to provide technical assistance on 

EPA environmental programs for schools and to implement school 

environmental health programs. If confirmed, I will faithfully discharge my 

responsibility to protect human health and the environment for all 

Americans with the highest possible dedication and commitment in 

accordance with the legal authorities established by Congress. 

42.The CWA prohibits anyone from discharging pollutants, including lead, through 

a point source into a water of the United States unless they have a National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. As part of their water 

quality standards regulations, states and authorized tribes adopt ambient water 

quality criteria with sufficient coverage of parameters, such as lead, and of 

adequate stringency to protect the designated uses of their surface waters. What 

changes, if any, would you make to the NPDES permit? 

I have not contemplated any changes to the NPDES permit program, if 

confirmed. 

43.Piease provide all confidential government information regarding the 2010 

consent order with the Making Money Having Fun (MMHF, LLC), a coal 

combustion waste mine fill operator in Bokoshe, Oklahoma, that you obtained as 

Attorney General. 

23 
763 

I did not become Attorney General until January 2011. The Oklahoma 

Department of Environmental Quality has responsibility for administering 

and enforcing environmental laws in Oklahoma, along with other agencies 

like the Water Resources Board and the Corporation Commission. Those 

agencies may be able to provide you information about the 2010 consent 

order your reference. 

44.The EPA finalized the first federal coal ash disposal rules in 2015, but the rules 

did not include any direct mechanism to implement or enforce the rules. Now, 

Congress has provided the mechanism inS. 612-1141

h, the WINN Act, which was 

passed with bipartisan support. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell also 

issued a press release stating his approval of several of the bill's provisions, 

including the coal ash language. As you may know, if states create a coal ash 

permitting program, or amend their current programs to incorporate federal 

standards and get EPA approval, they will be able to implement the rules 

themselves. If they do not, the EPA is directed either put into place a federal 

permitting system, or have the authority to directly enforce the requirement Do 

you intend to enforce the coal ash language in S. 612-1141

h, the WINN Act, that 

received bipartisan report? 

If confirmed as Administrator, I will faithfully execute all laws enacted by 

Congress, including the WIIN Act provisions regarding coal ash. 

45.Piease provide an explanation of any modification you would make to the coal 

ash provision inS. 612-1141

h, the WINN Act 

I have not had occasion to review in depth this new statutory. Congress, 

not the Administrator of EPA, has authority to modify statutory language 

such as the coal ash provision in the WIIN Act. I do not at this time have any 

opinion whether Congress should modify the statute in question. 

46.Kentucky is already in the process of working on regulations governing coal 

ash disposaL The state's proposal would modify the concept of "permit-by-rule," 

and allow utilities to build their own coal ash landfills or ponds without prior 

permitting or review by regulators. The utilities could be fined by regulators or 

sued by individuals for violations. Energy and Environment Cabinet spokesman 

John Mura has said the Cabinet believes this would qualify as a "permitting 

program" as required by the WINN Act. As Administrator, would you allow the 

Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet's "permit by rule" program to qualify 

as a permitting program under the bipartisan WIIN Act? Why or why not? 

I am not familiar with how Kentucky regulates coal ash disposal. It would be 

inappropriate for me to prejudge an issue that may come before me for 

decision if I am confirmed as Administrator. If the issue comes before me, I 

will ensure that the issue is fully and fairly considered with input from staff 

and in accordance with applicable legal requirements. 

24 
764 

47.What is the goal of your lawsuit asking to strike down EPA's "Waters of the 

United States" rule under the CWA? What will the states be empowered to do that 

they can't do with the rule in place? (be specific) 

The goal of the lawsuit I brought to advance the State of Oklahoma's 

interest in protecting its regulatory authority is to have the courts vacate the 

WOTUS rule. If the WOTUS rule is vacated, we will return the status quo, 

and the State of Oklahoma's sovereign authority to regulate waters within 

its border will not be diminished. 

48.The brief filed on behalf of states argues that states need to "protect" waters. 

Are you aware of the legal concept under the Clean Water Act that provides for 

states to be more protective than the Clean Water Act, not less-that the Act sets 

a minimum standard of protection and cleanliness? 

The state brief filed in the WOTUS case argues that the WOTUS rule fails to 

recognize the limits on federal authority that Congress adopted when it 

enacted the CWA over forty years ago. Under the Act, Congress "chose to 

'recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of 

States ... to plan the development and use ... of land and water 

resources."' Solid Waste Agency of N. Cook Cnty. v. U.S. Army Corps of 

Eng'rs, 531 U.S. 159, 174 (2001) ("SWANCC") (quoting 33 U.S.C. § 1251(b)). 

As noted in the state brief: "The Rule likewise reaches and even exceeds 

the outer bounds of Congress's constitutional authority. The Rule's 

expansion of federal authority over intrastate waters will "impinge[] o[n] the 

States' traditional and primary power over land and water use," and 

"readjust the federal-state balance." SWANCC, 531 U.S. at 174.The Rule's 

coverage of intermittent waters, ephemeral waters, and isolated sometimeswet lands "presses the envelope of constitutional validity," Rapanos, 547 

U.S. at 738 (Scalia, J., plurality) (citation omitted), far more than the 

challenged agency actions in Rapanos and SWANCC. That is, states have 

exclusive, not additional, authority over all land and non-navigable, wholly 

intrastate waters. 

49.Do you believe that states should be free to allow more pollution or fewer 

waters to be protected from pollution and development than described in the 

Waters of the United States Rule? 

The litigation brought by the states was premised on a concern that EPA 

had exceeded its statutory authority as established by Congress. 

Additionally, the WOTUS rule is a jurisdictional rule, not a substantive rule 

as your question suggests. 

25 
765 

SO.Are there waters that you believe should not be protected under the Clean 

Water Act? What specifically are they? Why do you think that the rule covers 

those waters now? Why do you think they should not be protected? 

As I stated in my testimony before the Committee, I believe that the Clean 

Water Act regulates more than navigable waters. But, it does not regulate all 

waters. How much more would best be answered by Congress. Absent 

Congressional action, it is the role of EPA to seek to provide clarity on the 

scope of federal jurisdiction. What that is has to be determined and 

assessed through notice and comment rulemaking. The WOTUS rule 

exceeded the authority granted by Congress by allowing federal regulation 

of land if rainwater collects on the surface and seeps into the ground or if 

rainwater runs over the land as ephemeral flows. It also exceeded CWA 

authority by regulating isolated ponds and wetlands. Such non-navigable, 

wholly intrastate water should be protected, as appropriate, under state, not 

federal, law. For example, isolated bodies of water have not been subject to 

federal regulation since the 2001 Supreme Court decision in SWANCC 

struck down earlier agency attempts to expand federal jurisdiction beyond 

the limits of the Act. The WOTUS rule would reverse that decision and 

regulate the same waters that the Supreme Court has already said are 

subject to exclusive state regulation. 

51.1n your lawsuit against the Clean Water Rule you argue against what you 

perceive as an undue federal intrusion on local control of decisions about water 

quality. You have also argued that cities in towns in Oklahoma should not be able 

to control their water quality by issuing local regulations for the activities of oil and 

gas companies. How is your stance in favor of local control under the Clean 

Water Act consistent with your position against local control when it comes to the 

water polluting activities of oil and gas companies? What legal underpinning is 

there for that difference? 

State concerns regarding the WOTUS rule are based on the limitations on 

federal authority under the Clean Water Act. Oklahoma concerns over the 

regulation of commercial activities including oil and gas company 

operations by local governments are based on the limitations of local 

authority under state law and federal law. Respect for the rule of law 

underpins both concerns, and both seek to ensure that laws enacted by the 

relevant legislatures-Congress on one hand, the Oklahoma Legislature on 

the other-are followed. 

52. Wetland ecosystems provide significant environmental and economic benefits 

to American citizens including water purification, flood and erosion control, and 

26 
766 

habitat for wildlife and commercial fish species. In fact, over fifty percent of 

commercial fish and shellfish stocks in the Southeastern United States rely on 

coastal wetlands. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act protects wetland 

ecosystems by regulating the discharge of dredging and fill material. If confirmed, 

what is your plan to improve the biological condition of wetlands? 

If confirmed, I will take care to faithfully execute all environmental laws 

enacted by Congress, including Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 

53.As of 2014 Oklahoma had nearly 14,000 miles of rivers and nearly 1,000 

square miles of lakes that are so polluted they don't meet the state's water quality 

standards. That's approximately 42% of all the delineated stream miles in 

Oklahoma, and almost 1,600 of those were added during your time as Attorney 

General. Only 107 miles of rivers in Oklahoma -about a third of one percentwere classified as meeting Oklahoma's water quality standards. The other 58% 

are classified as having insufficient data to enable the state to say they're meeting 

state standards. As Oklahoma's Attorney General, what did your office do to 

ensure that the companies were complying with the state's clean water laws? 

The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and the Oklahoma 

Water Resources Board have primary responsibility for implementing and 

enforcing environmental laws in Oklahoma. Such questions should be 

directed to those environmental regulators. 

54. How many water pollution enforcement actions did your office file, and how 

many of those resulted in orders to halt or reduce pollution discharges? Please 

provide a comprehensive list. 

The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and the Oklahoma 

Water Resources Board have primary responsibility for implementing and 

enforcing environmental laws in Oklahoma. Those agencies are thus best 

situated to provide a comprehensive list of enforcement actions take by the 

State of Oklahoma. The Office of Attorney General has on occasion assisted 

those environmental regulators by providing legal representation in cases 

under the CWA for pollution to groundwater, streams and other waterways. 

Other cases included pollution that caused fish kills and CERCLA 

Superfund sites that damaged Oklahoma groundwater and or streams. 

Those cases are EPA, States of Oklahoma & Texas v Mahard Egg Farm; 

EPA, State of Oklahoma v. Doe Run Mining et al.; ODWC v. Kent Feeds; 

ODWC v. Southern Towing; State Of Oklahoma, ODWC v Kelco 

Manufacturing; and State of Oklahoma & Cherokee Nation v. Sequoyah 

Fuels Corp. 

55. President Reagan's EPA adopted the "Stream Buffer Zone" rule to protect 

streams, and the Obama administration has replaced that rule with the "Stream 

Protection Rule." Do you think Reagan's rule was a more straightforward way to 

27 
767 

protect streams? Why or why not? What specifically about it was more 

"straightforward?" 

The stream buffer zone rule and stream protection rule are not EPA rules. 

They were issued by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement of the Department of the Interior. 

56. The American Society of Civil Engineers states that decrepit, decades-old 

municipal wastewater systems are at fault for the discharge of 900 billion gallons 

of untreated sewage and wastewater into U.S. waterways each year, enough to 

cover New York City under a layer 127 feet deep. According to a New York Times 

report, municipal sewer systems are the nation's biggest violators of the U.S. 

Clean Water Act, and more than one-third of them have violated pollution laws at 

least once since 2006. This worn-out, faulty infrastructure requires new 

investments in order to protect public health and the environment. As the leader 

of the Agency in charge of protecting human health and US waterways, how will 

you help states and municipalities modernize their wastewater infrastructure? 

If confirmed, I will continue support for the Clean Water State Revolving 

Loan Funds and the new Water Infrastructure Financing Innovation Act loan 

program. In addition, I would continue to implement EPA's Integrated 

Planning Framework to provide municipalities with flexibility to prioritize 

actions they take to come into compliance. 

57.The American Society of Civil Engineers states that decrepit, decades-old 

municipal wastewater systems are at fault for the discharge of 900 billion gallons 

of untreated sewage and wastewater into U.S. waterways each year, enough to 

cover New York City under a layer 127 feet deep. According to a New York Times 

report, municipal sewer systems are the nation's biggest violators of the U.S. 

Clean Water Act, and more than one-third of them have violated pollution laws at 

least once since 2006. This worn-out, faulty infrastructure requires new 

investments in order to protect public health and the environment. As the leader 

of the Agency in charge of protecting human health and US waterways, how will 

you help states and municipalities modernize their wastewater infrastructure? 

If confirmed, I will continue support for the Clean Water State Revolving 

Loan Funds and the new Water Infrastructure Financing Innovation Act loan 

program. In addition, I would continue to implement EPA's Integrated 

Planning Framework to provide municipalities with flexibility to prioritize 

actions they take to come into compliance. 

58.Given the President-elect's concerns about EPA's slow and inadequate 

response to lead in drinking water problems and the lack of adequate testing, 

what specifically would you do to prevent a Flint-like disaster from happening 

elsewhere? 

28 
768 

If confirmed, I will focus EPA's resources and attention on its core missions, 

including ensuring safe drinking water. 

59.Would you commit to undertaking stronger EPA oversight and enforcement of 

drinking water rules, such as stronger enforcement of the lead and copper rule 

that wasn't enforced in Flint, Ml? 

Yes. 

60.What specific lessons did you draw from the Flint, Ml tragedy, regarding EPA's 

proper role in overseeing the States' administration of delegated federal 

programs? 

I believe that EPA staff should be encouraged to notify their managers when 

they identify issues and managers must take those issues seriously when 

brought to their attention. I agree with the assessments of others that the 

Flint tragedy was a failure at every level of government, but I am particularly 

disturbed that EPA did not take action until long after they became aware of 

the elevated lead levels in Flint drinking water. 

61.What are your views on when EPA should step in to take enforcement or 

emergency action where a state is authorized to administer a program under one 

of the federal environmental laws but is failing its duty to protect the public? 

If confirmed, I will follow the process outlined in section 1414 of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act, as recently amended in section 2106 of the WIIN Act, to 

notify persons of elevated lead levels in their drinking water and will carry 

out the recommendations of the EPA Inspector General in his October 2016 

Management Alert to update the guidance on Safe Drinking Water Act 

emergency authority and require training on the use of that authority. 

62.Did EPA do an adequate job in the instance of the lead crisis in Flint, Ml? If 

not, what specifically would you do differently? 

No. If confirmed and faced with a similar situation, I would inform the state 

that EPA will take action if they fail to do so, and use EPA's emergency 

authority if the state fails to act. 

63.How specifically would you strengthen EPA's lead and copper rule for drinking 

water to ensure, as Mr. Trump suggested, that water is adequately tested and 

treated before children are exposed to lead? 

It would be inappropriate for me to prejudge the outcome of a matter that 

may come before me if confirmed as Administrator. If confirmed I would 

request a full briefing by EPA staff on potential revisions consistent with 

EPA legal authorities. 

29 
769 

64.House Republican leadership said in 2016 that EPA should get new lead-inwater rules proposed as soon as possible, and criticized the agency for being too 

slow when it promised to get them out by 2017. By what date would you commit to 

get a new rule issued? How would you ensure that final improvements to this rule 

are issued and implemented quickly? 

If confirmed, I will make issuing revisions to the Safe Drinking Water Act 

Lead and Copper Rule a priority. As I am not at the Agency, I do not know 

what is the soonest feasible date. 

65.An independent advisory group of experts including state regulators and water 

industry representatives recommended to EPA that all old lead service lines that 

pump water into homes from water mains should be replaced. The water utility 

trade associations support this. Do you support that recommendation? In your 

view, what would be the best way to pay for these replacements-Congressional 

Appropriations, issuance of debt by cities and states, a combination, or other? 

Please explain. 

It is my understanding that, if properly implemented, corrosion control 

treatment of water protects public health from exposure to lead from lead 

service lines. EPA's highest priority should be to ensure that this treatment 

is being properly employed. Replacement of lead service lines is a long 

term goal that municipalities should incorporate into their capital 

improvement plans, which are generally implemented through state and 

local funds. Federal assistance through the Drinking Water State Revolving 

Funds and the new WIFIA program can provide additional assistance. 

66.Do you agree that removing lead from gasoline was an important and 

successful EPA rule making? Why or why not? 

I have not evaluated this issue. 

67.Lead has no safe level of human exposure, particularly for children. What 

actions will you take to require lead to be removed from children's environment to 

reduce their exposure to lead in air, water, soil, and paint? 

If confirmed, I will faithfully carry out the authorities granted to EPA by 

Congress to reduce exposure to lead. 

68.1n March 2016 it was reported that 19 drinking water systems in Oklahoma had 

elevated lead levels. Of the 100 water systems with the highest self-reported lead 

levels between 2013 and 2015, seven are located in Oklahoma. One exceeded 

the federal action level by 1,175 parts per billion -many times greater than the 

amount of lead needed to cause the death of a fetus or spontaneous abortion, or 

30 
770 

permanent severe developmental problems. As Oklahoma A. G., what specific 

actions did your office take to protect children against lead poisoning? 

The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and the Oklahoma 

Water Resources Board have primary responsibility for implementing and 

enforcing environmental laws in Oklahoma. Questions relating to actions 

taken by the State of Oklahoma with regard to lead in water systems should 

thus be directed to those environmental regulators. 

69.How will you ensure that required evaluation of state drinking water primacy 

programs is conducted and how will you use EPA authority and resources to help 

states carry out their Safe Drinking Water Act primacy responsibilities? 

If confirmed, I will focus on EPA's core missions, including oversight of 

state implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

70.Wifl you direct EPA to continue and follow up on findings from 2016 increased 

oversight of state implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act Lead and 

Copper Rule? 

Yes. 

71.What are your expectations for the 2017 Proposed Revisions to the Safe 

Drinking Water Act Lead and Copper Rule? 

It is my understanding that EPA expects to issue that proposed rule in 2017. 

72.1n our conversation in my office, I asked for your thoughts on the Paris 

Agreement and the US commitment to the Paris Agreement. You pointed out that 

the Paris Agreement commitments are non-binding and when I asked you 

whether you thought the US should stay in the Paris Agreement you did not want 

to comment because you felt that the Paris Agreement is a matter handled in full 

by the State Department. Is that a fair characterization of your comments to me? 

I believe I stated that a decision as to whether the U.S. stayed in the Paris 

Agreement would be a decision for the State Department. 

73.Does that mean that you would advise the EPA to refrain from engaging with 

the State Department on US engagements with the UNFCCC and the execution 

process around the Paris Agreement? 

Interagency cooperation is very important. Should the Administration 

decide to continue to participate in the Paris Agreement, and if I am 

confirmed as Administrator, I will collaborate with all involved agencies to 

ensure that commitments made on behalf of the United States are 

31 
771 

achievable and consistent with requisite legal authorities delegated by 

Congress. 

74.How does your position that EPA should ostensibly recuse itself from State 

Department responsibilities and engagements on the Paris Agreement comport 

with any plans that you, as the next EPA administrator, may execute to rescind or 

alter domestic policies that affect the US National Determined Contribution (NDC) 

to the Paris Agreement? 

As I stated in a previous answer, should the State Department decide to 

continue to participate in the Paris Agreement and if I am confirmed as 

Administrator, I will work with all involved agencies to ensure that 

commitments made on behalf of the United States are achievable and 

consistent with requisite legal authorities delegated by Congress. 

75.Recently at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Chinese 

President Xi Jinping expressed China's great interest in being the world's leader 

on a number of issues including action to address climate change. Do you believe 

it is the U.S.'s national interest to cede leadership to the Chinese on global action 

to address climate change? 

It is the mission of the State Department to advance our national interests 

within the realm offoreign policy. If confirmed, I will work to advance the 

mission of the EPA, which is to protect human health and the environment, 

consistent with the State Department's strategy for international 

engagement on climate change. 

76.Do you believe climate change is a real and serious threat to the planet? 

The climate is changing and human activity impacts our changing climate in 

some manner. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent 

of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and 

dialogue. 

77.Do you accept the scientific consensus that should average global 

temperatures reach or exceed +2 degrees Celsius that many regions of the world 

will very likely experience catastrophic changes in the environment that may very 

likely impact the safety and prosperity of many people? 

• Do you believe that uncertainty in climate science warrants greater study before 

the U.S. takes significant action to reduce greenhouse gas pollution? 

• If so, are you aware that the portion of the scientific community that claims there 

is uncertainty in the science is limited to limited to about 5% of climate science 

communities? 

• If you believe that the very small portion of the world's climate science 

community who hold outlier opinions on the severity of climate change justifies 

inaction, why wouldn't you give similar credence to other outlying opinions in the 

32 
772 

climate science community that hold that global average temperatures may 

exceed 10 degrees Celsius and that catastrophic events may occur as soon as 

five or ten years? 

The climate is changing and human activity impacts our changing climate in 

some manner. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent 

of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and 

dialogue. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any regulatory actions are 

based on the most up to date and objective scientific data. 

78.0ur ability to predict the weather has improved dramatically over the last 20 

years with the advent of supercomputers, new satellite monitoring options, and 

vastly superior atmospheric models. But still floods, droughts, hurricanes and 

similar phenomena occur and cause damage with sometimes only limited 

warning. What precision of prediction do you require before you are willing to 

accept the scientific community's overwhelming consensus that unchecked 

increases in greenhouse gas emissions will very likely have catastrophic effects, 

many of which the National Climate Assessment has described in detail every 4 

years since 1990? 

The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of human 

activity on our changing climate, and what to do about it, are subject to 

continuing debate and dialogue. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any 

regulatory actions are based on the most up to date and objective scientific 

data. 

79.Do you believe that science should guide our nation's environmental policy? 

Congress has made it very clear in the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act 

and other major environmental laws that the regulatory actions of the EPA 

should be based on the most up to date and objective scientific data. If 

confirmed, I will follow the directives of Congress to set science-based 

standards to protect the environment and human health. 

80.What would have to change about our ability to predict the effect of increasing 

greenhouse gas emissions in Earth's atmosphere for you to consider it adequate? 

If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any regulatory actions are based on 

the most up to date and objective scientific data, including the ever-evolving 

understanding of the impact increasing greenhouse gases have on our 

changing climate. 

81.Would you support making those changes in sufficient time to ward off any 

negative effects of increasing those emissions? 

33 
773 

The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of human 

activity on our changing climate, and what to do about it, are subject to 

continuing debate and dialogue. If confirmed, I will make sure the agency's 

regulatory actions are based on the most up to date and objective scientific 

data. 

82.What is your scientific background and what expertise do you have in 

environmental science? 

My degrees are in communications, political science, and law. As with prior 

EPA Administrators who held bachelor of arts degrees, I completed science 

courses as a prerequisite to requiring my degree. Also, I understand that six 

of the 12 people who have been confirmed as EPA Administrator (including 

the first four individuals) had law degrees. 

83.How do you square your opinion that air regulation is a matter for the states 

and that EPA has limited authority to mandate regulation of air pollution, with the 

court's overwhelming opinions that EPA has exclusive authority to regulate air 

pollution including greenhouse gases? 

The concept of cooperative federalism is a bedrock principle of the Clean 

Air Act, the Clean Water Act and other EPA-administered laws. Whether 

working to improve air quality, water quality or other important 

environmental objectives, Congress made achieving these a shared 

responsibility between the EPA and the states. If confirmed, I will respect 

the intention of Congress and relative statutory framework. 

84.Given that you are one of the lead attorneys challenging the clean power plan, 

a regulation promulgated by EPA in part due to the court's decision in landmark 

cases that determining EPA authority and responsibility to regulate greenhouse 

gases for domestic sources, in you rescind the Clean Power Plan: 

It is unclear what question is being asked. 

85.What policies would you promulgate to replace the Clean Power Plan, which 

you would have to do to ensure the EPA is in compliance with the court orders to 

regulate greenhouse gases? 

It would be inappropriate for me to prejudge an issue that may come before 

me for decision if I am confirmed as Administrator. If the issue comes 

before me, I will ensure that the issue is fully and fairly considered with 

input from staff, as part of a transparent process that seeks input from 

stakeholders, and that is consistent with EPA's statutory authorities. 

86.What assurances will you give the public that your proposed replacement rules 

will withstand the tests established in the case law determining EPA's 

endangerment finding is adequate and legal and sufficiently regulates carbon 

pollution to protect public health and safety? 

34 
774 

It would be inappropriate for me to prejudge an issue that may come before 

me for decision if I am confirmed as Administrator. If the issue comes 

before me, I will ensure that the issue is fully and fairly considered with 

input from staff, as part of a transparent process that seeks input from 

stakeholders, and that is consistent with EPA's statutory authorities. 

87.Do you trust the analysis, concerns and recommendations of security experts 

at the State Department, Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency, 

The Navy War College, UN Security Council, and the World Bank, who have 

expressed growing concerns over the threat climate change poses to national and 

global security? 

I have no reason to disagree with the statements from the listed security 

experts, although I have not made any attempt to independently verify their 

accuracy. 

88.U.S, national security experts that are working to incorporate climate modeling 

and climate change assessments into our national security planning apparatus 

rely on sound scientific analysis, modeling data, and technical assistance from the 

EPA in interpreting the data. Will commit to continuing EPA's engagements with 

the agencies and departments responsible protecting our national security and 

advancing our understanding and preparedness for the security risks climate 

change poses to the United States? 

Interagency cooperation is very important. If I am confirmed as 

Administrator, I will collaborate with any agency or department that may 

require the EPA's technical expertise to strengthen their own administrative 

actions. 

89.What assurances can you provide the public, particularly vulnerable 

communities at greatest risk from pollution, that you will represent their interests 

fairly as administrator when your personal political campaigns, as well as 

organizations that you have held leadership positions within - like the Republican 

Attorneys General Association, has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in 

contributions from the fossil fuel industry because of your working championing 

their interests by challenging laws regulating these industries? 

As I explained in my testimony to the Committee, I am a firm believer in the 

EPA's mission to protect the environment and look forward to the 

opportunity lead the agency to help provide our future generations with a 

better and healthier environment for all Americans. 

90.You have lost many of the lawsuits challenging EPA's authorities, including the 

Chesapeake Bay TMDL and the lawsuit challenging the endangerment finding on 

greenhouse gases. Given the difficulty you've had winning cases, what 

35 
775 

assurances can you provide the committee of your sound judgment when it 

comes to understanding our nation's environmental statutes? 

As Attorney General of Oklahoma, my focus has been on examining federal 

environmental statutes and relevant case law to evaluate the legality of the 

EPA's actions and the impact of those actions on Oklahoma. Oklahoma 

filed a friend of the court brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third 

Circuit in part to inform the court how EPA's interpretation of TMDL and 

other matters involved in the challenge would impact other states, including 

Oklahoma. If I am confirmed, I will apply those lessons which I have 

developed in the performance of my duties as Attorney General and would 

continue to do so if confirmed as Administrator. 

91. Will you work with all stakeholders and the State Department on execution of 

the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phasedown hydrofluorocarbons 

(HFCs) and will you commit to ensuring that any actions EPA may take to modify 

or rescind the Safe New Alternatives Program (SNAP) rules on HFCs coincide 

with the U.S.'s acceptance or ratification of the Kigali Amendment? 

Should the State Department decide to advance the Kigali Amendment to 

the Montreal Protocol and if I am confirmed as Administrator, I will work 

with all involved agencies and impacted stakeholders to ensure that EPA's 

actions related to hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are coordinated accordingly. 

36 
776 

Ranking Member Carper: 

1.Piease list all public speeches or presentations you have made that included 

references to any issue related to energy or the environment since 1998, and 

please provide copies (written, audio, or video) of any such speeches or 

presentations. Please also indicate whether you received compensation for any 

such speech or presentation (whether stipend, travel, lodging expenses, or other 

form of remuneration) along with the name of the entity that provided such 

compensation and the amount thereof. 

Please see attached list of speeches and enclosed copies of speeches in 

response to this request. 

2. Please provide a list of the skills and experiences you bring to the EPA 

Administrator position and why you believe that you would be a good fit for the 

position. 

I am a licensed attorney with significant experience in constitutional law, the 

Administrative Procedure Act, and Environmental Protection Agency 

administered statutes. This body has recognized my expertise in EPA 

related matters on several occasions, inviting me to testify before this and 

other committees on matters relating to the EPA. My legal education and 

profession has trained me to ask probing questions and think critically 

regardless of the subject. 

3. Please define the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s mission and the 

role you believe that sound science plays in fulfilling that mission. 

The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment. Where 

Congress directs the EPA to act based upon scientific findings, the EPA 

should rely on well-reasoned, and sound, scientific findings. 

4. In a 2006 article in The Oklahoman, you were described as someone that 

"believes in negotiating, but not compromising." Do you feel this continues to be 

an accurate description of you? If so, why? Do you agree with President Nixon's 

articulation of the principal roles and functions of the EPA? If you do not agree, 

please explain the aspects with which you disagree and why. 

Based on the limited information provided in the question, I am uncertain 

about the article to which the question refers. The content and context of 

37 
777 

the article and quote are not readily apparent. However, if confirmed as 

Administrator, I will take my responsibility to protect human health and the 

environment for all Americans with the highest possible dedication and 

commitment in accordance with the legal authorities established by 

Congress. I have a record of working on a bipartisan basis. 

5. Do you think it is constitutional for Congress to direct EPA to set national 

standards that protect public health? Is it constitutional for Congress to do that 

even if the pollution only harms citizens of a single state? 

The constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress depends on the 

particulars of the particular law, and will typically be decided by a court. 

Courts have generally recognized that Congress has the authority to create 

the EPA and vest certain powers in it. 

6. Mr. Pruitt, your official biography on the website of the Oklahoma Attorney 

General's office says that you are " ... a leading advocate against the EPA's activist 

agenda." The EPA. the agency you have been nominated to lead, has the critical 

mission "to protect human health and the environment" for all Americans. When 

you sued the EPA over the Good Neighbor Rule (Cross-state Rule), how did that 

protect human health and the environment for downwind states? 

I firmly believe that the EPA plays an important role in addressing interstate 

water and air quality issues, but it must do so within the bounds of its legal 

authority. The actions undertaken by the Office of Attorney General 

challenging the Cross State Air Pollution Rule related to whether EPA had 

properly accounted for and allocated pollution from upwind states, as 

mandated by Congress. Regulations that are not on solid legal foundation 

and that cannot survive judicial review will not result in environmental 

protections. 

7. You've been part of numerous lawsuits against the EPA- against clean air, 

clean water and climate regulations. However, you also have stated you are for 

clean air and clean water. Can you name one Clean Air Act regulation- not a 

voluntary or grant program- that is on the books today that you do support? 

I firmly believe that the EPA plays an important role, especially as it relates 

to cross-state air and water pollution, but EPA must do so within the 

bounds of its legal authority as provided by Congress. Regulations that are 

not on solid legal foundation and that cannot survive judicial review will not 

result in environmental protections. 

38 
778 

8. Are there any other EPA regulations that are on the books today that you do 

support? 

I have not conducted a comprehensive review of existing EPA regulations. 

As Attorney General, I have brought legal challenges involving EPA 

regulations out of concern that EPA has exceeded its statutory authority 

based on the record and law in that matter. 

9. President-elect Donald Trump has said repeatedly-at least half a dozen 

times-on the campaign trail that he would starve the EPA of funding or 

completely eliminate the agency. In March last year, the President-elect stated in 

reference to the EPA: 

"We are going to get rid of it in almost every form. We're going to have little tidbits 

left but we're going to take a tremendous amount out," 

After the election, the President-elect didn't seem to change his tune. Presidentelect Trump stated two days after the election again in reference to the EPA: 

"Environmental protection, what they do is a disgrace; every week they come out 

with new regulations," 

You also have a history attacking the agency. Please tell us why we should 

disregard the President-elect's statement on the EPA, disregard your actions and 

only believe your words that you will support clean air and clean water laws? 

As I testified, I support the EPA's mission to protect human health and the 

environment. If confirmed, I will faithfully execute the environmental laws 

enacted by Congress. 

10. As Administrator, will you take into account the true costs of air pollution 

including the adverse health and environmental impacts on states that are 

adversely affected by upwind pollution sources? 

As I stated at the hearing, costs are important in the rulemaking process 

and the Courts have recognized that important factor. The Clean Air Act 

prescribes when costs should be considered and to what extent in a 

39 
779 

rulemaking. If confirmed, I commit to faithfully executing the law as enacted 

by Congress. 

11. As Administrator, will you take into account the full economic and job benefits 

that result from clean air protections such as the economic benefits to 

communities from clean air and American leading businesses that manufacture 

advanced technologies? 

As I stated at the hearing, the EPA should consider the benefits of cleaner 

air for the public. The Clean Air Act prescribes certain instances where the 

EPA is obligated to conduct a cost-benefit analysis as part of the 

rulemaking process. If confirmed, I commit to faithfully execute the law as 

enacted by Congress. 

12. If it is technologically and economically feasible to eliminate the release of a 

particular pollutant, do you agree that we should do so? 

Environmental statutes prescribe certain instances where technological or 

economic feasibility is a relevant factor to consider in a rulemaking. If 

confirmed, I commit to faithfully execute the law as enacted by Congress. 

13. I have often found that environmental regulations can and often drive 

innovation. We have seen that with the Acid Rain Program, CAFt:, Clean Diesel 

standards, RFS and most recently with the mercury standards. Do you agree 

environmental regulations often drive innovation? If so, why? If not, why not? 

The factors that lead to technological innovation can be complex and 

varied, and legal requirements may be one such factor. 

14. Who serves or has served as your scientific advisor for climate change 

related issues during your time as attorney general? Please provide their names, 

their titles, and when they served as your science advisors. 

The Office of Attorney General does not have a science advisor to advise on 

climate change related issues. 

15. Mr. Pruitt, my State of Delaware is already seeing the adverse effects of 

climate change with sea level rise, ocean acidification, and stronger storms. 

While all states will be harmed by climate change, the adverse effects will vary by 

40 
780 

state and region. Can you comment on why it is imperative that we have national 

standards for the reduction in carbon pollution? 

If confirmed, I will fulfill the duties of the Administrator consistent with 

Massachusetts v. EPA and the agency's Endangerment Finding on 

Greenhouse Gases respective of the relative statutory framework 

established by Congress. 

16. Pruitt, will you agree that there will be no retaliation against EPA employees 

who work on climate change issues? 

If confirmed, yes. 

17. Clean car standards save consumers money at the pump and help reduce oil 

imports. Automakers are complying with vehicle standards ahead of schedule. As 

Administrator, will you commit to support, defend and enforce EPA's current 

programs to address emissions from vehicles? 

Congress has enacted numerous statutes directly or indirectly affecting 

transportation fuels, transportation fuel infrastructure, and the vehicles that 

consume those fuels. Congress committed many of those statutes to the 

EPA Administrator's responsibility. If confirmed as Administrator, I would 

administer each of those statutes in accordance with Congress's statutory 

objectives, and in light of the administrative record in each given 

proceeding. And I would work with Congress to ensure that its statutes 

continue to provide the best possible legal framework for governing 

American fuels, fuel infrastructure, and vehicles, and for promoting 

American energy independence, energy security, and environmental 

protection. 

18. What is your definition of sound science? 

Sound science is that which complies with applicable laws and federal 

guidance regarding scientific integrity, peer review, information quality, and 

transparency. 

19. Prior to your nomination, how have you acquired scientific information 

relevant to the missions of the EPA? And since your nomination? 

41 
781 

As Attorney General of Oklahoma, my focus has been on examining federal 

environmental statutes and relevant case law to evaluate the legality of the 

EPA's actions. Legal education is rooted in the Socratic method, which 

trains law students through probing questions and critical thinking and I 

apply those lessons and skills in the performance of my duties as Attorney 

General and would continue to do so if confirmed as Administrator. 

20. Please list all undergraduate and postgraduate science courses that you have 

taken. Please describe any other science education that you have completed over 

the years beyond high school. 

My degrees are in communications, political science, and law. As with prior 

EPA Administrators who held bachelor of arts degrees, I completed science 

courses as a prerequisite to requiring my degree. 

21. President Nixon articulated that an important role for EPA is "The conduct of 

research on the adverse effects of pollution ... the gathering of information on 

pollution, and the use of this information in strengthening environmental protection 

programs and recommending policy changes." Do you agree with President Nixon 

that EPA has an important role to play in researching any emerging risks from 

pollution as well as strengthening protections and recommending policy changes 

based on the science? 

Yes. 

22. Do you think the U.S. National Academy of Sciences is a reliable authority on 

scientific matters? 

I have no reason to think otherwise, but I have not had occasion as Attorney 

General to consider this issue. 

23. What degree of scientific certainty should the EPA have about a potential 

health or environmental threat before acting to protect people from that threat? 

EPA actions are governed by statutes such as the Clean Air Act and other 

legal authorities and relevant case law, which establish applicable legal and 

scientific standards for the Administrator to act. If confirmed, I will adhere 

to these authorities to fulfill EPA's mission to protect human health and the 

environment for all Americans. 

42 
782 

24. Do you support legislative efforts to change the independent nature of the 

EPA's Science Advisory Board? If so, please explain why. 

I am unfamiliar with the legislative efforts being referred to in this question. 

If confirmed, I expect to be briefed by EPA staff before taking any position 

on such matters. 

25. If confirmed, do you plan to propose or advocate for budget cuts to the EPA's 

FY 2018 budget? If so, for which programs would you reduce funding? Would 

you target the EPA's research programs? Are there areas of agency action where 

you believe additional financial resources are needed? 

I have no first-hand knowledge of EPA's development of its FY 2018 budget 

request. If confirmed, I look forward to working with EPA's budget staff and 

program offices to develop a budget and will work to ensure that the 

resources appropriated to EPA by Congress are managed wisely in pursuit 

of the Agency's important mission and in accordance with all applicable 

legal authorities. 

26. For the most part, patients and their families only participate in scientific trials 

and studies once they know their privacy- and any resulting health-related 

information- will remain confidential and secure. If confirmed, do you commit to 

respecting confidentiality agreements that exist between researchers and their 

subjects? Will you protect the health information of the thousands of people that 

have participated in health studies in the past? 

If confirmed, it will be my privilege to work with EPA scientists and the 

thousands of other dedicated public servants at EPA who have chosen to 

devote their careers to improving public health and our environment. I have 

no first-hand knowledge of EPA's policies or practice concerning the 

confidentiality of health information. If confirmed, I would expect to learn 

more about the existing practice and I commit to follow applicable legal 

authorities regarding the confidentiality of health information. 

27. If confirmed, how will you ensure that EPA maintains independent science, 

transparent decision-making, and scientific free speech? 

If confirmed, it will be my privilege to work with EPA scientists and the 

thousands of other dedicated public servants at EPA who have chosen to 

43 
783 

devote their careers to improving public health and our environment. I also 

commit, if confirmed, to follow applicable laws and federal guidance on 

scientific integrity, information quality, and transparency. 

28. Mr. Pruitt, when Congress passed our bedrock environmental laws, we 

directed EPA to periodically review and update the federal minimum health 

protection standards based on the best available scientific evidence. Do you 

agree that these federal minimum standards must be based on the best available 

science? 

I agree that EPA regulatory actions must be based on the best available 

science in accordance with the law. If confirmed, I commit to faithfully 

execute the law as enacted by Congress. 

29. Mr. Pruitt, conflicts of interest threaten the integrity of science and public trust 

in the agency's scientific determinations. Scientists are not immune from having 

their work and conclusions influenced by their financial interests. Allowing 

scientists with conflicts of interest to serve as peer reviewers is contrary to widely 

accepted scientific integrity practices, including those of the National Academies 

of Sciences, the National Institutes of Health, and other scientific bodies. Industry 

funded scientists who may have unique expertise can be invited to present 

information to peer reviewers or an advisory committee, but should not actually 

serve as a reviewer or member of the committee. Can you explain what steps 

you would take as Administrator to ensure that scientists with financial conflicts of 

interest do not threaten the independent peer review process at EPA? 

Independent peer review is critical to ensuring the scientific integrity of EPA 

actions. If confirmed, it will be my privilege to work with EPA's scientists 

and the thousands of other dedicated public servants at EPA who have 

chosen to devote their careers to making a healthier and cleaner 

environment. I commit, if confirmed, to follow applicable legal authorities 

regarding conflicts of interests in the scientific peer review process. 

30. Mr. Pruitt, do you agree that for scientific research to be credible, it must be 

subject to objective, independent peer review before it is published and remain 

subject to scrutiny after it is published? 

Independent peer review is critical to ensuring the integrity of scientific 

research. If confirmed, it will be my privilege to work with EPA's scientists 

and the thousands of other dedicated public servants at EPA who have 

chosen to devote their careers to making a healthier and cleaner 

44 
784 

environment. I commit, if confirmed, to follow applicable legal authorities 

regarding the peer review process for scientific research. 

31. Mr. Pruitt, do you agree that for scientific research to be credible, scientists 

must disclose all sources of funding for their research? 

Credible scientific research is critical to the EPA's mission and, if 

confirmed, I commit to follow applicable legal authorities regarding 

scientific research. 

32. In the 1970 and 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress delayed older 

coal power plants air control requirements because Congress thought that most of 

the old plants would be shuttered in the decade after the legislation passed. 

Congress thought there was no need to invest in new technologies at these old, 

dying plants. Did many of these coal plants actually retire? Do you know the 

average age of our coal fleet? 

I understand that the U.S. Energy Information Administration's Electric 

Power Annual2015 report released in November 2016 indicated that 

between 2005 and 2015 more than one-third of U.S. coal-fired power plants 

retired and the remaining fleet has an average age of 38 years. 

33. Do you know what the role the price of natural gas plays in industry decisions 

to retire coal plants and fuel switch to natural gas? 

I am aware that market conditions, such as the reduced price of natural gas, 

and costly environmental regulations have been causing coal-fired power 

plants to prematurely shut-down or convert to natural gas. 

34. In your cases against the EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Rule, who served as 

your scientific advisor for the case? 

Oklahoma's petition to review the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule was a legal 

challenge brought on the administrative record and argued that EPA acted 

contrary to law and arbitrarily and capriciously by not considering the costs 

of regulation in determining whether it was necessary and appropriate to 

regulate mercury from fossil fuel power plants within the meaning of 

Section 112(n). The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with Oklahoma's 

argument that EPA failed to act in accordance with the rule of law when it 

ignored costs in its determination and remanded the matter to the D.C. 

Circuit. 

45 
785 

35. Mr. Pruitt, ten percent of American women have dangerous levels of mercury 

in their bodies. But recent data shows that since the United States started 

cleaning up emissions from coal power plants, not only has mercury pollution in 

the North Atlantic fallen dramatically, so has the concentration of mercury in 

Atlantic fisheries. Mercury in Atlantic bluefin tuna is down 19% in only eight years. 

Given this resounding confirmation that regulation works, how firmly can you 

assure us that if you are confirmed, EPA's recent successful crackdown on all 

sources of mercury emissions, including coal power plants will accelerate, rather 

than pulling back? 

As I stated in my testimony, mercury is listed as a hazardous air pollutant 

under section 112 of the Clean Air Act and is subject to regulation from 

listed source categories of hazardous air pollutants. If I am confirmed as 

Administrator, I will regulate under Section 112 in a manner that is 

consistent with Congress's intent in enacting that provision. I will also 

faithfully administer other federal statutes that regulate mercury to the 

extent that they are under my jurisdiction, including the Mercury Export Ban 

Act of 2008, the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management 

Act of 1996, the Clean Water Act, the Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the 

Safe Drinking Water Act. 

36. As you may remember, we had three exchanges over the issue of whether 

EPA should regulate toxic air emissions, including mercury, from power plants, 

specifically through the provisions authorized under Section 112 of the Clean Act. 

We also discussed your lawsuits, one pending, against the recent EPA rule that 

again addresses regulation of power plant mercury and other toxic air emissions 

under Section 112. Below is a direct quote from our second exchange, when I 

asked you directly about regulating power plant toxic air emissions: 

"Senator, I actually have not stated that I believe the EPA should not move 

forward on regulating mercury or adopting rulemaking in that regard. Our 

challenge was with regard to the process that was used in that case and how it 

was not complicit with statutes as defined by congress. So there is not a 

statement or belief that I have that mercury is something that shouldn't be 

regulated under section 112 as a hazardous air pollution. A HAP." 

These statements conflict directly with the language in the brief that you filed on 

June 2012 in White Stallion Energy, et al. V EPA: which says: "Finally, the record 

does not support EPA's findings that mercury, non-mercury HAP metals, and acid 

gas haps pose public health hazards." 

46 
786 

These statements also conflict directly with language in the brief in the pending 

case that you filed April25, 2016 with Murray Energy Corporation, et al v EPA: 

"EPA cannot properly conclude that it is "appropriate and necessary to regulate 

HAPs under Section 112." 

These written statements quite clearly directly contradict your statements before 

our committee. Which statement is false, the verbal before our committee or the 

legal documents you filed pending in court? If confirmed, will you recuse yourself 

from any involvement in questions or cases related to regulating air toxic emission 

from power plants under Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act? 

As I stated in my testimony, mercury is listed as a hazardous air pollutant 

under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and is subject to regulation from 

listed source categories of hazardous air pollutants. Electric utility steam 

generating units are subject to regulation under Section 112 only upon a 

lawful showing that their regulation is appropriate and necessary. In 

Michigan v. EPA, the Supreme Court agreed with Oklahoma's legal position 

when it concluded that EPA interpreted Section 112(n) unreasonably by 

failing to consider costs in its appropriate and necessary 

determination. That challenge was made by Oklahoma on the specific 

administrative record before the court in that matter and all statements 

regarding the sufficiency of regulation in that case relate only to the 

material in the record before the Agency. If I am confirmed as 

Administrator, I will apply the Clean Air Act faithfully in all matters before 

me and will follow the advice of the EPA Ethics Counsel in determining any 

recusals. 

37. As you may remember, we had three exchanges over the issue of whether 

EPA should regulate mercury (and other air toxic) emissions from power plants, 

specifically through the provisions authorized under Section 112 of the Clean Act. 

We also discussed your lawsuits, one pending, against the recent EPA rule that 

implement regulations to regulate power plant mercury emissions under Section 

112. As you may remember, I specifically asked you at the end of the hearing: 

"Based on your earlier statements, that if confirmed we can have your assurances 

that the EPA will continue to regulate mercury emissions from power plants under 

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and you will not defer to the states." 

You answered: 

47 
787 

"Mercury under Section 112 is something that EPA should deal with and 

regulate." 

You stated this many times. I was very clear in my questioning that I was asking 

about mercury emissions and of course, the many other air toxic emissions, which 

the courts have said must be regulated under Section 112(d) from power plants. 

However, in this answer, you only mentioned mercury and not power plant 

mercury emissions, and you completely disregarded the other air taxies that are 

emitted by power plants, which include acid gases and carcinogenic metals like 

arsenic, nickel and cadmium. So please clarify, if confirmed, can we have your 

assurance that the EPA will continue to regulate power plants using the 

technology based standards required by Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act and 

you will not defer to the states. Please answer in regards to all power plant air 

toxic emissions, not just on the question of mercury itself, and not just with 

respect to whether mercury should be regulated, but as to whether power plant 

mercury and other air taxies must be regulated. 

As I stated in my testimony, mercury is listed as a hazardous air pollutant 

under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and is subject to regulation from 

listed source categories of hazardous air pollutants. Electric utility steam 

generating units are subject to regulation under Section 112 only upon a 

lawful showing that their regulation is appropriate and necessary. In 

Michigan v. EPA, the Supreme Court agreed with Oklahoma's legal position 

when it concluded that EPA interpreted Section 112(n) unreasonably by 

failing to consider costs in its appropriate and necessary 

determination. The Mercury and Air Taxies Standard has not been vacated 

by the Supreme Court or the D.C. Circuit and currently regulates both 

mercury and other air taxies. As Administrator, I will enforce the Mercury Air 

Taxies Rule so long as that Rule remains in force. 

38. As you may remember, we had three exchanges over the issue of whether 

EPA should regulate mercury (and other air toxic) emissions from power plants, 

specifically through the provisions authorized under Section 112 of the Clean Act. 

We also discussed your lawsuits, one pending, against the recent EPA rule that 

implement regulations to regulate power plant mercury emissions under Section 

112. After our first exchange, you stated: 

"There was no argument that we made from a state perspective that mercury is 

not a hazardous air pollutant under Section 112. Our argument focused upon the 

cost-benefit analysis that the EPA failed to do and the Michigan v EPA case the 

Supreme Court actually agreed. It was more about the process again that the 

EPA was supposed to go through in regulating mercury to provide certainty to 

48 
788 

those in the workplace, not a statement in respect whether mercury should be 

regulated or not under section 112." 

Mr. Pruitt, in this exchange, did you mean to avoid the question whether power 

plant mercury and other HAPs must be regulated under the technology based 

requirements of maximum achievable control, under Section 112(d)? Or do you 

agree the Supreme Court, which expressly declined to consider this question, 

leaving the MATs Rules Section 112(d) regulations in place? Please fully explain 

your previous statements. 

Neither statement is false. As I stated in my testimony, mercury is listed as a 

hazardous air pollutant under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and is 

subject to regulation from listed source categories of hazardous air 

pollutants, and Oklahoma was not challenging mercury's status as a HAP in 

the case you reference. Electric utility steam generating units are subject to 

regulation under Section 112 only upon a lawful showing that their 

regulation is appropriate and necessary. In Michigan v. EPA, the Supreme 

Court agreed with Oklahoma's legal position when it concluded that EPA 

interpreted Section 112(n) unreasonably by failing to consider costs in its 

appropriate and necessary determination. The Mercury and Air Toxics 

Standard has not been vacated by the Supreme Court or the D.C. Circuit and 

currently regulates both mercury and other air toxics. As Administrator, I 

will enforce the Mercury Air Toxics Rule so long as that Rule remains in 

force. 

39. As you may remember, we had three exchanges over the issue of whether 

EPA should regulate mercury (and other air toxic) emissions from power plants, 

specifically through the provisions authorized under Section 112 of the Clean Act. 

We also discussed your lawsuits, one pending, against the recent EPA rule that 

implement regulations to regulate power plant mercury emissions under Section 

112. As you may remember, I specifically asked you at the end of the hearing: 

"Based on your earlier statements, that if confirmed we can have your 

assurances that the EPA will continue to regulate mercury emissions from power 

plants under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and you will not defer to the states." 

You answered: 

"Mercury under Section 112 is something that EPA should deal with and regulate." 

49 
789 

You stated this many times during our exchanges. I was very clear in my 

questioning that I was asking about mercury emissions from power plants. And of 

course as well the many other air taxies emitted by this industry and listed by 

congress for regulation. However, in this answer, you only mentioned mercury 

and not power plant mercury emissions, or other air taxies at all. So please 

clarify, 

Do you agree that the EPA's recent consideration of the costs of the Mercury 

and Air Taxies Rule that shows that the agency has met the "necessary and 

appropriate" criteria Congress provided under 112(n) to direct the EPA to regulate 

power plant mercury (and other air toxic) emissions under Section 112, and more 

specifically under Section 112(d)? If not, why not? 

If you do not agree that EPA has met the "necessary and appropriate" criteria 

found in Section 112(n), what is your understanding of what that would mean for 

the Mercury and Air Taxies Rule? 

If the pending case you brought before the DC Circuit challenging EPA's cost 

analysis (Murray Energy Corporation, et al v EPA), is successful what is your 

view of what EPA would have to do to regulate mercury and other hazardous air 

pollutant power plant emissions under Section 112? 

As I stated in my testimony, mercury is listed as a hazardous air pollutant 

under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and is subject to regulation from 

listed source categories of hazardous air pollutants. Electric utility steam 

generating units are subject to regulation under Section 112 only upon a 

lawful showing that their regulation is appropriate and necessary. In 

Michigan v. EPA, the Supreme Court agreed with Oklahoma's legal position 

when it concluded that EPA interpreted Section 112(n) unreasonably by 

failing to consider costs in its appropriate and necessary determination. In 

my capacity as Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, on remand the 

petitioner group has argued that EPA's supplemental finding regarding 

costs is contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious for the reasons stated 

in that brief. If the D.C. Circuit finds against EPA, I am confirmed as 

Administrator and the matter comes before me at that time, I will seek 

and follow the advice of EPA Ethics Counsel in determining whether I may 

participate in that matter. If I do participate in that matter, I will apply the 

Clean Air Act faithfully and use my best efforts to take appropriate action in 

light of the administrative record before the Agency at that time. 

40. In the pending case you brought before the DC Circuit challenging EPA's cost 

analysis (Murray Energy Corporation, et al v EPA), the following statement is 

included in your brief: 

"EPA also claims that, even though it was able to quantify highly uncertain IAQ 

benefits purportedly resulting from mercury emissions, other health and 

50 
790 

environmental benefits of reducing EGU mercury, acid gas, and non-mercury 

metals emissions simply could not be quantified. But these purported benefits are 

to speculative to support "appropriate and necessary" finding for the same 

reasons the Agency cannot quantify them: they are not supported by the scientific 

literature." 

As you probably know, the health benefits of cleaning up hazardous air pollutants 

are many, although many are difficult to quantify and certainly difficult or 

impossible to monetize. There are, however, several studies on how to quantify 

loss of IQ from mercury exposure and some early studies on how to quantify longterm effects of exposure. If confirmed, how do you recommend the EPA calculate 

the health risks to the unborn that may be exposed to mercury-laden fish because 

of power plant mercury emissions? How would you quantify the health risks of the 

Oklahomans living near the forty lakes that have mercury fish consumption 

advisories? There are also emerging studies quantifying the health impacts of the 

toxic metals and acid gases emitted by power plants, although monetizing the 

precise health costs of each pollutant are not possible as they are emitted in the 

toxic soup. How would you justify not protecting people living near these 

emissions if it were not possible to precisely quantify the health risks of exposure 

to power plant emissions of hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, nickel, arsenic, 

chromium and other heavy metals? 

If I am confirmed as Administrator, I look forward to working with EPA staff 

to arrive at a transparent and scientifically sound process for determining 

the health risks associated with any activity that is properly before me at the 

Agency, including those related to mercury exposure, and regulating those 

activities as appropriate consistent with Congress's intent in enacting the 

Clean Air Act. 

41. What industry is the largest emitter of mercury air emissions in this country? 

The second? The third? Please provide peer-reviewed data and sources for this 

answer. 

EPA's technical support document (v2) for the 2011 National Emissions 

Inventory indicates that the industries that are the three largest point source 

emitters of mercury in the U.S. are (1) utility coal boilers, (2) electric arc 

furnaces, and (3) industrial, commercial institutional boilers and process 

heaters. 

42. What impacts do mercury power plant air emissions have on unborn children? 

Can you explain how power plant mercury emissions settle in water bodies and 

eventually can impact the unborn? 

51 
791 

Some portion of mercury emitted into the air by power plants is deposited 

directly or indirectly into a watershed. Once present in the watershed, it can 

be naturally converted into methylmercury, which can then can be absorbed 

by aquatic organisms, such as fish, and consumed by humans. The unborn 

children of pregnant women can be exposed to methylmercury if their 

mothers consume those fish. 

43. How much of our nation's mercury air emissions come from the natural 

environment, vs manmade emissions? Please provide peer-reviewed data and 

sources for this answer. 

J.M.Pacynaetai.:Current and future levels of mercury atmospheric pollution 

on a global scale, Atmos. Chern. Phys., 16,12495-12511,2016, indicates 

that approximately 30% of worldwide mercury emissions are manmade and 

70% come from primary natural mercury emissions and re-emissions. 

44. Mr. Pruitt, do you understand that EPA's data show that power plants emit not 

only 50 percent of all US emissions of mercury, but that they also emit 82% of 

hydrochloric acid gas, 62% of hydrofluoric acid gas as well as many listed heavy 

metals, which are emitted as particulate matter, including Selenium (83% of 

domestic emissions), Nickel (28% of domestic emissions), Arsenic (62% of 

domestic emissions), Chromium (22% of domestic emissions), and others? The 

cite for those statistics is found in EPA's record at 76 Fed. Reg. Page 25006 

Table 5. Given that Section 112(d) as interpreted by the US Courts for many 

years requires the regulation of all listed hazardous air pollutants from listed 

industries, would you not agree that power plant hazardous air pollutants must all 

be regulated under the technology based requirements of section 112(d)? 

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standard has not been vacated by the Supreme 

Court or the D.C. Circuit and currently regulates both mercury and other air 

toxics. If confirmed, I will enforce the Mercury Air Toxics Rule so long as 

that Rule remains in force. 

45. Given that the statute requires a showing that not one power plant emits 

hazardous air pollutants in amounts greater than required to cause a lifetime risk 

of cancer greater than one in a million to the most exposed persons, and for noncarcinogenic air toxics, to exceed a level which is adequate to protect public 

health with an ample margin of safety and no adverse environmental effects, and 

given that EPA's long standing record shows that the coal- and oil-fired power 

industry cannot make either of those showings what other regulatory mechanism 

do you believe is available "under section 112"? 

52 
792 

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standard has not been vacated by the Supreme 

Court or the D.C. Circuit and currently regulates both mercury and other air 

toxics. If confirmed, I will enforce Mercury Air Toxics Rule so long as that 

Rule remains in force. If I am confirmed as Administrator and am presented 

with information showing that EPA has discretion to regulate power plants 

in a manner that is consistent with the Clean Air Act but that differs from the 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, or that power plants meet the standard for 

de-listing under Section 1129c)(9), I would consider that matter in due 

course as I would consider any other matter under my jurisdiction in due 

course. 

46. The joint brief filed by your state and the regulated industry in the most recent 

round of appeals of EPA's decision making on power plant air toxics suggests that 

you are not aware of recent court precedent upholding EPA's evaluation of all the 

benefits, including so-called 'co-benefits' of EPA's rulemaking on particulate 

matter reductions that would be the direct result of the rule. What is your position 

on the importance of judicial precedent in governing the Agency's actions under 

the same statutes as have been previously interpreted by the courts? 

If confirmed, I would faithfully comply the Clean Air Act in accordance with 

congressional intent. Judicial precedent is undoubtedly an important guide 

to congressional intent but Congress has also delegated interpretive 

authority to the Administrator of the Clean Air Act, consistent with judicial 

review. If I am confirmed as Administrator and form the judgment that a 

judicial decision is incorrect, I would consider seeking an appeal or petition 

for certiorari to the Supreme Court seeking reversal of that decision. 

Likewise, EPA recently promulgated regional consistency regulations that 

address the implication of adverse federal court decisions that result from 

challenges to locally or regionally applicable actions and I would exercise 

my discretion under those regional consistency regulations unless and until 

they are changed. 

47. As I am sure you are aware, the US Supreme Court has expressly declined to 

consider whether EPA should have chosen some other mechanism "under section 

112" in regulating power plant mercury and all the other HAPs emitted by the 

industry. What is your position on that precedent? 

In the White Stallion decision, the D.C. Circuit held that EPA's interpretation 

of Section 112(n) that Sections 112(c) and -(d) provided the appropriate 

mechanism for regulating power plants under Section 112 after the 

appropriate and necessary determination was made was entitled to 

deference. As your question indicates, the Supreme Court did not grant 

53 
793 

discretionary review of that question. So long as the White Stallion decision 

is not reversed by the D.C. Circuit and the underlying agency action is not 

vacated, it remains a valid judicial precedent on this point. 

48. Given that you have been actively suing the EPA over the Mercury and Air 

Toxics Rule and have one pending lawsuit, will you recuse yourself from 

participating in any decision making that may reopen the EPA's decision 

regarding the fact that it is "necessary and appropriate" to regulate power plants 

under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act? 

As I stated in my testimony to the Committee, I will follow the advice of EPA 

Ethics Counsel in all recusal matters. 

49. If confirmed, will you continue with EPA's assertion that it is "necessary and 

appropriate" to regulate mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from power 

plants under Section 112 -specifically under the technology based maximum 

achievable control requirements of Section 112(d)? 

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standard has not been vacated by the Supreme 

Court or the D.C. Circuit and currently regulates both mercury and other air 

toxics. As Administrator, I will enforce all aspects of the Mercury Air Toxics 

Rule so long as that Rule remains in force. 

50. Do you agree with the Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 531 

U.S. 457 (2001) decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia that states that the 

EPA cannot consider implementation costs when setting primary and secondary 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards? If you do not agree, please explain. 

As I stated in my testimony to Congress, there are instances where 

consideration of costs is not a factor. Setting the NAAQS for criteria 

pollutants is one such instance. 

51. In 2015, you stated that in implementing the tighter ozone NAAQS, the EPA 

"failed to achieve the goals to protect air quality; the agency did not "articulate 

how the rule would further protect public health"; and was another "attempt by the 

administration to use executive agencies like the EPA to bypass Congress." Can 

you please explain what you meant by these statements? 

Based on the limited information in the question, the source or context of 

the quote to which the questions refers is not readily apparent. Oklahoma 

54 
794 

joined four other states in a petition for review of EPA's 2015 decision to 

lower the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone from 75 ppb to 70 

ppb. The legal question raised by the state petitioners in the case is whether 

EPA set the standard at a level than can be achieved by states given the 

background concentrations and uncontrollable sources of ozone in many 

parts of the country. The briefs filed by the many State petitioners to that 

rule fully explain the States' position and speak for themselves. The case 

remains pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit. 

52. As many of my colleagues know, I am an avid runner. I especially love to run 

with my 22-year son, who is a triathlete. In Delaware during the summer, we often 

have code orange days warning about the high levels of ozone for that day. Can 

you take a minute or two to describe how high levels of ozone could damage my 

lungs if I were to take a long run during a code orange day? Does ozone pollution 

cross state boundaries? If confirmed, how would you direct states to work 

together to reduce ozone pollution? 

As I indicated at my nomination hearing, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

is important, as pollution does cross state boundaries. An upwind state that 

contributes to a downwind state's inability to meet air quality standards 

should take responsibility. 

53. In 2013, you argued that the EPA's decision to impose a Federal 

Implementation Plan on Oklahoma to address Regional Haze would cost more 

than $1 billion over five years. It is three years later. Do you still agree with this 

cost assessment? If not, why not? 

The cost estimates referenced in this question were developed in 

connection with the Oklahoma State Implementation Plan that EPA rejected 

and EPA's subsequent decision to implement a Federal Implementation 

Plan. Oklahoma and a state utility filed legal challenges against the Federal 

Implementation Plan decision. The 1Oth Circuit initially stayed the rule 

pending judicial review. A split panel of the 1Oth Circuit upheld the Federal 

Implementation Plan in 2013. As Attorney General, I have not had reason to 

revisit the specific cost estimate at issue in this case. 

If I am confirmed as Administrator, I will use my best efforts to hold to the 

five-year NAAQS review period prescribed by the Clean Air Act. 

55 
795 

54. If confirmed, will you continue to hold to the five-year National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards review time period that the Clean Air Act requires of the EPA? 

If I am confirmed as Administrator, I will use my best efforts to hold to the 

five-year NAAQS review period prescribed by the Clean Air Act. 

55. In previous hearings in this committee, we have had a few economists testify 

questioning EPA's science linking small particle pollution to negative health 

impacts. Can you just take a moment and talk about what you know about small 

particles and how they impact our lungs? Is the science robust in this area? 

The science linking adverse health impacts and fine particulate matter 

pollution is well established. Accordingly, EPA has promulgated a National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard for particulate matter pollution that limits the 

concentration of small particulates, including those smaller than 2.5 

microns, in the ambient air that at the level that the agency has determined 

is requisite to protect public health and welfare from adverse effects, while 

allowing an adequate margin of safety. 

56. Mr. Pruitt, Section 109 of the Clean Air Act is very clear. It requires EPA to 

review the NAAQS for six common air pollutants including ground-level ozone, 

particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide every 5 years. The Clean Air 

Act requires EPA to set these standards that "are requisite to protect the public 

health," with "an adequate margin of safety," and secondary standard necessary 

to protect public welfare. The science was clear that the 2008 ozone standard 

was not protecting public health, so EPA was required to Act. Is that not your 

understanding of the Clean Air Act? 

Section 109 of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to set NAAQS at the level that 

is requisite to protect against adverse health and welfare effects, while 

allowing an adequate margin of safety. The Act includes a regular review 

cycle for criteria pollutants. 

57. The EPA updated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule in September 2016, 

which is within the time period for the rule to be subject to the Congressional 

Review Act (CRA). As Administrator, would you support the President signing a 

CRA resolution of disapproval that would reject these new standards? 

Although I am familiar with the update to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

and generally familiar with the Congressional Review Act, I have not 

56 
796 

reviewed any potential legislation which may reject these new standards. If I 

am confirmed, I will thoroughly review any resolution of disapproval which 

may be filed pursuant to the Congressional Review Act on this issue. 

58. Mr. Pruitt, the Clean Air Act recognizes that air pollution does not respect state 

boundaries and directs EPA to set minimum national standards to protect the 

health of the nation, including protecting downwind states. 

~Do you agree that EPA should set minimum national standards? 

•Do you agree that EPA must protect downwind states? 

As I indicated during my nomination hearing, I believe the Cross State Air 

Pollution Rule is important and should be enforced by the EPA. An upwind 

state that contributes to a downwind state's nonattainment should take 

responsibility for that contribution. 

59. Mr. Pruitt, my State of Delaware is a downwind state, and most of the air 

pollution in my state is coming from upwind states. 

•Do you agree that it is EPA's role to ensure equity between where air pollution is 

produced and where it is received? 

•Do you agree that to remedy this unfairness, the upwind states must do more to 

control their emissions to avoid exporting the pollution (and the costs to the health 

and welfare) to the downwind states? 

As I indicated during my nomination hearing, I believe the Cross State Air 

Pollution Rule is important and should be enforced by the EPA. An upwind 

state that contributes to a downwind state's nonattainment should take 

responsibility for that contribution. 

60. As you are well aware, on April2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 

497 (2007), the Supreme Court determined that sufficient information existed then 

for EPA to make an endangerment finding with respect to the combined emissions 

of six greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines 

under CAA section 202(a). On December 7, 2009, the Administrator determined 

that those gases/sources contribute to greenhouse gas pollution that endangers 

public health and welfare. How do you plan to execute your legal authority to 

protect the public health and welfare from greenhouse gas pollution? 

The Supreme Court held that GHGs are an air pollutant under the Clean Air 

Act. It did not address the question of whether regulation of GHGs under 

the Clean Air Act is warranted. In the subsequent UARG decision, the 

57 
797 

Supreme Court cautioned EPA that there are significant limits on EPA's 

authority to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act. The unprecedented 

Supreme Court stay of EPA's so-called "Clean Power Plan" was predicated 

upon a finding that the plaintiffs in the case were likely to prevail on the 

merits. In light of these holdings, I will hew closely to the text and intent of 

the Clean Air Act when considering further regulation of GHGs under that 

law if confirmed as Administrator. 

61. Building off Congress's work on CAFE, the Obama Administration has 

updated emission standards for light and heavy-duty vehicles. These rules have 

had very little effect on the purchase price of new vehicles, but have saved 

consumers millions of dollars in fuel costs, vastly improved our energy security by 

slowing petroleum use and reduced a lot of pollution. If confirmed, do you 

support further strengthening vehicle emission standards? And with your 

federalism view, how do states address carbon pollution from vehicles 

themselves? 

In making each of its decisions regarding light- and heavy-duty vehicle 

emission standards, the EPA has made decisions based on the 

administrative record at hand and Congress's statutory objectives. If 

confirmed, I would take care to make such decisions regarding vehicle 

emissions standards in furtherance of Congress's statutory objectives, 

based on the evidence in the administrative record. With respect to 

federalism, the Supreme Court stressed in Massachusetts v. EPA that 

States play a crucially important role in promulgating vehicle emission 

standards under the Clean Air Act: each "State has an interest independent 

of and behind the titles of its citizens, in all the earth and air within its 

domain." To that end, "Congress has ordered EPA to protect [the States and 

their people] by prescribing standards applicable to the 'emission of any air 

pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicle engines, which in 

[the Administrator's] judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which 

may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."' 

Furthermore, the Clean Air Act and other federal administrative laws give 

each affected State "a concomitant procedural right to challenge the 

rejection of its rulemaking petition as arbitrary and capricious," and the 

Supreme Court affords States "special solicitude" to challenge the resulting 

standards in court. If confirmed, I would take care to ensure that States 

continue to play a central role in the administrative process giving rise to 

the EPA's vehicle emissions standards. 

62. The EPA promulgated phase two of the heavy-duty vehicles greenhouse gas 

emissions standards in August 2016, which is within the time period for the rule to 

be subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA). As Administrator, would you 

support the President signing into law a CRA resolution of disapproval that would 

58 
798 

reject these new standards? What is your view of whether the EPA would be able 

to re-issue any heavy-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards given the 

CRA's language that would prohibit the agency from issuing regulations that are 

"substantially similar?" 

Although I am familiar with the regulations on heavy vehicle greenhouse 

gas emissions standards which were published in August 2016, I have not 

reviewed any potential legislation which may reject these standards. If I am 

confirmed, I will thoroughly review any resolution of disapproval which may 

be filed pursuant to the Congressional Review Act on this issue. In terms of 

re-issuing other heavyduty vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards, I 

would have to be briefed in detail on the regulations which have been 

published, and the provisions of the Congressional Review Act which 

prohibit the Agency from issuing any regulations which are substantially 

similar to the initial rules in order to determine what options the Agency 

may have in terms of proposing and finalizing additional regulations in this 

space. 

63. As you know, the Renewable Fuels Standard, as amended by Congress in 

2007, requires the blending of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel into 

conventional gasoline and diesel by 2022. In order to add that many renewable 

fuel gallons to our fuel supply, do you agree that EPA must approve the sale of 

fuels blended with greater than 1 0-percent renewable content? 

While Congress included "applicable volume" levels in the RFS statute, 

Congress also took care to expressly authorize the EPA Administrator to 

reduce volumetric requirements below the statute's default levels in light of 

real-world conditions from year to year. Specifically, the Administrator may 

waive the statute's volume requirements if he determines "that 

implementation of the requirement would severely harm the economy or 

environment of a State, a region, or the United States, or "that there is an 

inadequate domestic supply." The EPA already has granted such waivers 

based on real-world conditions in recent years and, if confirmed, I would 

take care to administer the statute in accordance with the statutory 

objectives. While no statute mandates the sale of fuels blended with greater 

than 10 percent renewable content, statutes do vest the Administrator with 

discretion to authorize a variety of fuel blends. 

64. In October 2010, EPA approved the use of a 15-percent renewable fuel blend 

for cars built in 2007 or later. In the following January, EPA extended the use of 

that blend to model years 2001 to 2006. Do you support the decision by the EPA 

to allow 15-percent renewable fuel blends? If confirmed, would you commit to 

59 
799 

using the discretion give to you by the Clean Air Act to evaluate even higher 

blends? 

The EPA's 2010 and 2011 decisions to grant "partial waivers" for the use of 

E15 fuel for some vehicles were premised upon the EPA's conclusions 

(based on the administrative record) regarding E15's potential impacts on 

exhaust emissions (both immediate and long-term), evaporative emissions, 

"materials compatibility," and "drivability and operability." If confirmed, I 

would take care to administer the law in accordance with Congress's 

statutory objectives and the administrative record. 

65. The Renewable Fuels Standard was designed to reduce dependence on 

foreign oil at a time that the U.S. was importing well more than half of its demand 

and concerns about energy and national security were paramount. It also was 

designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. 

Now that the United States supplies 76 percent of its oil domestically, do you 

believe the program continues to have an important role in enhancing the energy 

and environmental security of our country? 

As Congress indicated in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007, domestic production of renewable fuel contributes to our nation's 

"greater energy independence and security." 

67. As you heard in my opening statement, the EPA's record demonstrates that 

strong environmental policies create economic opportunities. An undeniable 

example of this is the impact of the Renewable Fuels Standard in rural America. 

According to the Renewable Fuels Association, in 2015, 14.8 billion gallons of 

ethanol was produced, supporting 85,967 direct jobs, while net petroleum import 

dependence fell to just 24 percent, and would have been 32 percent without the 

addition of domestically produced ethanol. In addition, the Association says the 

use of ethanol in gasoline in 2015 reduced greenhouse gas emissions from 

transportation by 41.2 million metric tons- equivalent to removing 8.7 million 

cars from the road for an entire year. Do you agree that the Renewable Fuels 

Standard has supported rural economies in America while allowing for the 

production of cleaner transportation fuels? 

I agree that the RFS's promotion of renewable fuels contributes to economic 

growth in agricultural communities, and promotes the production and 

consumption of transportation fuels providing many environmental 

benefits. 

60 
800 

68. Some of my colleagues believe removing the corn ethanol mandate, but 

keeping the advanced biofuel mandate in the RFS is the best way forward. Do 

you have concerns with this approach? 

The RFS statute neither expressly mandates the blending of corn ethanol 

nor prohibits its blending. In enacting the RFS statute, Congress took care 

to expressly authorize the EPA Administrator to reduce the volumetric 

requirements below the statute's default levels, in light of real-world 

conditions. Specifically, Congress authorized the Administrator to waive the 

volume requirements if he or she determines "that implementation of the 

requirement would severely harm the economy or environment of a State, a 

region, or the United States, or "that there is an inadequate domestic 

supply." The EPA already has granted such waivers based on real-world 

conditions in recent years and, if I am confirmed, I would take care to 

administer the statute in accordance with the statutory objectives. 

69. As you may know, in recent years we have seen significant swings in 

Renewable Identification Number (RINs) prices. RINs are used by the EPA to 

track and ensure refineries are in compliance with the Renewable Fuel Standard. 

Many small and mid-range refineries are having difficulties with the price spikes of 

the RIN prices because many are buying some, if not all, their RINs off the 

market. As a result, high and volatile RIN prices have had a financial impact on 

these refineries. As the RFS continues to be implemented, what do you believe 

the agency should do- if anything -to assist with RIN prices? 

As I indicated in my testimony, the EPA's RIN framework is currently the 

subject of a pending comment period. If confirmed as Administrator, I would 

take care to administer the RFS program, including the RIN framework, in 

accordance with Congress's statutory objectives, and based on the 

evidence in the EPA's administrative record, as well as the expertise of EPA 

staff and the expertise of other federal agencies relevant to the RIN 

framework and affected markets. The EPA already has entered into a 

"memorandum of understanding" with the CFTC, "on the sharing of 

information available to EPA related to the functioning of renewable fuel and 

related markets." 

70. Mr. Pruitt, do you agree that the burden should be on a chemical facility 

operator to show that the design and operation of the facility is as safe as possible 

to protect workers and the public from explosions, fires, and other releases of 

toxic chemicals? 

61 
801 

I believe that every American should be provided safe home and work 

environments and people who live or work in and around chemical facilities 

are no exception to that. 

71. Mr. Pruitt, when there are feasible measures that chemical companies can 

take to prevent explosions and fires that release toxic chemicals into surrounding 

communities that can kill people, do you agree that the companies should take 

such measures? 

I believe that chemical companies should take actions to prevent explosions 

and fires as well as other safety incidents. 

72. Do you support the "not net loss of wetlands" policy? George H.W. Bush 

initiated this critical policy in 1988 to protect our remaining wetlands habitat and all 

of the critical ecological and economic functions it supports. It has been U.S. 

Government policy ever since. 

Yes. 

73. A GAO report published on December 5, 2013 found that "more than 40 years 

after Congress passed the Clean Water Act[ ... ] EPA reported that many of the 

nation's waters are still impaired, and the goals of the act are not being met. 

Without changes to the act's approach to nonpoint source pollution, the act's 

goals are likely to remain unfulfilled." If confirmed, how will you work to address 

surface water quality impairments, including from non-point source pollutants? 

Congress did not grant EPA authority to regulate non-point sources 

because regulation of non-point sources is the regulation of land, a 

traditional state authority. Instead, Congress created a planning process 

under section 208 of the Clean Water Act and authorized funding for state 

non-point source management plans under section 319. If confirmed, I will 

implement the authorities granted to EPA by Congress. 

74. You have attacked the Obama Administration's "Waters of the United States" 

regulation, objecting to "the significant negative impact such a rule would inflict on 

states and the landowners within their borders." Oklahoma's major streams and 

rivers lie within two river basins, the Red and the Arkansas, both of which flow into 

other states. And Oklahoma receives most of its waters from upstream 

neighbors, particularly Texas. Without national regulation, how would you 

suggest that that Oklahoma's downstream neighbors -Arkansas and Louisiana -

62 
802 

guarantee the quality of the water that flows across their boundaries? And how 

would you suggest that Oklahoma protects the quality of the water that it receives 

from upstream neighbors like Texas? You appear to believe that the only parties 

with an interest in water are those within a state, not downstream neighbors. 

Why? 

Federal jurisdiction exists over navigable water, interstate water, and 

tributaries that can transport pollutants to navigable waters, and jurisdiction 

over the interstate rivers that are the subject of your question is not in 

dispute. 

75. Communities across the country are facing the economic and health 

consequences of contaminated ground water, which impacts water systems and 

private well owners. How will you work to ensure communities are protected from 

drinking contaminated ground water? How will you address and strengthen the 

EPA's response to groundwater contamination and ensure homeowners and 

water systems are taking the steps to diagnose, treat, and remediate their 

groundwater resources? 

For drinking water wells that are public water systems, the requirements of 

the Safe Drinking Water Act apply and EPA has authorities to provide small 

systems with technical assistance through circuit rider programs. For 

private well owners, the WIIN Act provided authority for EPA to support a 

drinking water technology clearinghouse for well owners. If confirmed, I will 

use the authorities and resources granted by Congress to help both public 

water systems and well owners. 

76. This question is of interest to Senator Manchin and me: We must do 

everything we can to ensure that every American has access to safe and clean 

water. West Virginia has had issues with chemicals like PFOA in our drinking 

water as recently as last year. In fact, the State had to ship in alternative water 

supplies to the city of Vienna. Martinsburg and Parkersburg also had serious 

challenges. And, in 2014, the Elk River Chemical Spill left 300,000 West 

Virginians without access to potable water, so I know Senator Manchin looks 

forward to working with you to promote federal clean water initiatives. He also 

appreciates your commitment in your meeting together to working to address 

these challenges. Please outline how you intend to expand efforts to promote 

safe drinking water and support the modernization of our nation's water 

infrastructure. 

If confirmed, I will focus on EPA's core missions, including, as appropriate, 

use of EPA's emergency order authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

63 
803 

I also will implement the newly revised TSCA statute to address chemicals 

and will continue implementation of monitoring, review, and regulation of 

contaminants under the SDWA if confirmed. 

77. One of the tools within the Clean Water Act that communities can use to 

restore the quality of polluted waters is through the development and 

implementation of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plan. The GAO also found 

that funding for TMDLs has been insufficient in meeting national needs, with more 

than 50% of the nation's waters being identified as impaired. Will you advocate for 

funding to match the needs for the TMDL program? How do you plan to support 

and strengthen the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regulatory framework? 

If confirmed, I will support continued funding of State programs authorized 

under section 106 of the Clean Water Act, which states use in part for TMDL 

development. I also will support flexibility for state use of 106 funds to 

allow states to focus on priorities such as impaired waters requiring 

TMDLs. If confirmed, I also will support the continued development of tools 

to help states develop TMDLs. Finally, I would note that neither GAO nor 

EPA has said that 50% of the nation's waters are identified as impaired. For 

example, states have assessed about 32% of rivers and streams. Of those 

assessed waters, states have identified about 54% as impaired. That means 

states have data showing that 17% of rivers and streams are impaired. You 

cannot extrapolate the data from assessed waters to all waters because 

most states target their monitoring to focus on waters they have reason to 

believe are impaired, so they can target their resources where they are 

needed the most. 

78. You expressed great pride in your role in resolving the Mahard Egg Farm 

enforcement, indicating that it demonstrates your commitment to enforce 

environmental law. When was the complaint in the litigation filed, and how did that 

date correspond to the date of the proposed consent decree? Based on your 

responses to these questions, how well investigated and developed was this case 

when you took office? Can you explain your personal involvement in either the 

complaint or the consent decree? 

The complaint was filed on May 23, 2011. The consent decree was entered 

into on August 10, 2011. There was no filed case when I took office, but the 

matter had been investigated by the Office of Attorney General, the 

Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, the EPA, and the State of Texas. I 

authorized the filing of the case once in office. The complaint and consent 

decree were handled by the attorneys in the Office of Attorney General 

responsible for environmental matters. 

64 
804 

79. Mr. Pruitt, the Clean Water Act requires EPA to review and revise its national 

water quality standards for pollutants based on the best available science. EPA 

has proposed or finalized more stringent standards for ammonia, nutrients, 

selenium, and dental offices. Do you agree that these standards must be based 

on the best available science? 

Under section 303(c)(1) of the Clean Water Act, states are required to, every 

three years "hold public hearings for the purpose of reviewing applicable 

water quality standards and, as appropriate, modifying and adopting 

standards." Proposed changes to state water quality standards are 

submitted to EPA. Under 303(c)(3), EPA is to approve the state standards if 

they meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act. Under section 304, EPA 

establishes water quality criteria that provide guidance for state water 

quality standards. The Clean Water Act directs EPA to review these criteria 

documents "from time to time" except for criteria to protect public health 

from pathogens in recreational coastal waters, which must be reviewed 

every 5 years. Unlike the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act does 

not require the use of best available science. That said, I believe it is always 

important to use best available science, particularly for science documents 

like water quality criteria documents. 

80. Last Congress, our committee worked together to pass the Frank R. 

Lauten berg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, a bill overhauling the 

toothless Toxic Substances Control Act, that was signed into law earlier this year. 

EPA is now responsible for implementing the law, which will require a significant 

amount of resources. If confirmed, do you commit to ensuring EPA will prioritize 

implementation and has sufficient resources to comply with the requirements and 

timelines established by Congress? 

As you are likely aware, I wrote this body a letter urging passage of the 

Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act. If confirmed as EPA Administrator, I will 

take care that the Act is faithfully executed. A copy of that letter is attached. 

81. Last year, the Toxic Substances Control Act was signed into law. There was 

little doubt that this bipartisan legislation was overdue and very necessary to 

protect our constituents. EPA has already announced they are fast-tracking five 

chemicals under the authority of the new TSCA regime. You mentioned during 

our meeting earlier this month that you were concerned with some of the more 

aggressive timelines included in this legislation. Please elaborate. Please also 

outline how you intend to support the Agency in ensuring they have the resources 

to comprehensively implement this landmark legislation. 

65 
805 

The Lauten berg Act has a number of statutory deadlines that must be met 

by the Agency when carrying out the law. If confirmed I fully intend to pick 

up the process where the previous administration left off with completing 

the required rulemakings and initial chemical reviews as well as subsequent 

prioritizations. The updated law also allowed for updating the industry user 

fees used to fund the program, a process started by the previous 

administration, and one which I intend to quickly evaluate. 

82. You have publicly supported the recent updates to the TSCA law. Since this 

legislation pre-empts state actions, how does that align with your views on states 

rights and federalism? Do you agree that federal environmental laws- such as 

the Mercury and Air Taxies Rule, TSCA and Clean Power Plan- also provide 

certainty to businesses that have to do business across the country? 

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress 

the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the 

several states, and with the Indian tribes." Unlike the Clean Water and 

Clean Air Acts which regulate pollutants TSCA regulates chemical 

substances manufactured for commerce in not only all 50 states but often 

globally. Federal preemption of states is appropriate when dealing with 

interstate commerce issues and the Lautenberg Act's preemption 

provisions comport to my views on states' rights and federalism for those 

reasons. 

83. Do you think that companies that work in the U.S. and around the world 

should be able to hide chemical information here that they have given to 

governmental regulators elsewhere? 

The Lauten berg Act amended Section 14 of TSCA to delineate a process by 

which to protect, review, and possibly make public chemical information. If 

confirmed I intend to implement the law as passed by Congress. 

84. In a 2005 U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs hearing, President-elect Trump publicly praised asbestos, calling it "the 

greatest fireproofing material ever made." Every major independent scientific 

organization, including the World Health Organization, the International Agency on 

Research for Cancer (IARC), and others, acknowledges asbestos as a known 

human carcinogen with no safe level of exposure. The US EPA spent years 

studying the dangers of asbestos, and ultimately attempted to ban most uses. 

Just last month, the EPA redoubled its stance on the dangerous nature of 

asbestos by designating it as a top-ten high-risk chemical for priority TSCA action. 

If confirmed, will you heed the decades of conclusive science about asbestos or 

66 
806 

will you allow the President-elect's personal opinion skew the EPA's actions on 

asbestos? 

The Lautenberg Act has extensive requirements for risk evaluations and the 

use of sound science in decisions throughout the chemical review and 

potential regulatory process. If confirmed I will implement the law following 

those statutory requirements. 

85. You may be aware that asbestos use has drastically declined among 

industries that once used it heavily, including the construction and automotive 

sectors, as those industries began switching to safer substitutes. As a result, one 

industry now accounts for 90% of all asbestos consumed in the U.S.- the chloralkali industry, which uses asbestos diaphragms in its chlorine manufacturing 

process. The chlor-alkali industry has been the only point of public push back 

against an asbestos ban under TSCA, and they have asked the EPA to exempt 

the chlor-alkali industry's use from any regulation on asbestos. Exempting the 

primary user from a restriction or ban, of course, would result in negligible impact. 

Will you commit to ensuring that any regulation or restriction on asbestos does not 

allow for any exemptions for the chlor-alkali industry or any other industry? 

Asbestos has been identified by the EPA as a high-priority chemical that 

requires a risk evaluation following the process established by the 

Lautenberg Act to determine whether conditions of use of the chemical 

substance pose an unreasonable risk. Prejudging the outcome of that risk 

evaluation process would not be appropriate. 

86. The EPA promulgated a ban on asbestos in 1989, after a decade of research, 

risk evaluation, and rulemaking. In 1991, the asbestos ban was overturned by the 

5th Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds that the ban fell short of EPA's 

requirement to impose regulations that are "least burdensome" to industry. Under 

the Lautenberg Act reforms to TSCA, the EPA is now empowered to ban and 

regulate chemicals that are "toxic, persistent, and bioaccumulative," like asbestos, 

without concern for industry cost or any other non-risk factor. Will you commit to 

ensuring that industry concerns are not considered during the risk evaluation and 

rule making processes regarding asbestos? 

The Lautenberg Act requires notice and comment be provided at multiple 

stages of the chemical review process including prior to publishing a final 

risk evaluation and through any potential subsequent regulatory 

rulemaking. This notice and comment is designed to get the input of a wide 

range of stakeholders to ensure sound and inclusive rulemakings and not to 

produce or dismiss comments from one particular entity or interest. 

67 
807 

87. On April 9, 2015, you wrote a letter in support of the Lauten berg Act refonns 

to TSCA. In this letter, you expressed your support for the EPA: "I believe the 

agency, within the boundaries of its authorities as provided by Congress, serves a 

valuable mission to protect human health and preserve the environment." During 

the writing, negotiations, and passage of the Lauten berg Act, Congress- and the 

sitting President- made explicitly clear their intentions that the newly 

empowered EPA should swiftly ban asbestos and other deadly toxins. How will 

you ensure the EPA is able to meet statutory TSCA deadlines set forth by 

Congress? 

I am committed to implementing the Lautenberg Act as required by law 

including meeting the statutory deadlines enumerated in the law including 

the required rulemakings, risk evaluations, and future chemical 

prioritizations. 

88. In your April9, 2015 letter in support of the Lauten berg Act reforms, you 

specifically praised the bill's explicit protection of vulnerable populations, including 

workers. Asbestos is one of the leading workplace carcinogens, responsible for 

approximately half of all occupational cancer deaths, according to the World 

Health Organization (WHO). During 1999-2014, the CDC NIOSH National 

Occupational Respiratory Mortality System (NORMS) database, there were 

62,956 Americans who died from mesothelioma and asbestosis. These are just 

two of many deadly asbestos-related diseases. Given this data and your selfexpressed concern for protecting workers, will you commit now to ensuring the 

EPA bans the import and use of asbestos under TSCA should you be confirmed? 

Asbestos has been identified by the EPA as a high-priority chemical that 

requires a risk evaluation following the process established by the 

Lautenberg Act to determine whether conditions of use of the chemical 

substance pose an unreasonable risk. Prejudging the outcome of that risk 

evaluation process would not be appropriate. 

89. Your home state of Oklahoma leads the nation in pesticide-related illnesses 

and deaths. At a time when pesticide/herbicide usage is on the rise across the 

country, how would you protect American workers, consumers, and landscapes 

from the toxic effects of agricultural chemicals? 

If confirmed as Administrator, I would faithfully execute the laws 

administered by EPA. I would expect to be briefed by staff before taking 

any action on this issue. 

68 
808 

90. What will you do to ensure EPA is conducting a transparent process regarding 

pesticide regulation? Please specify how you will approach notifying the public 

regarding pesticides in terms of notice of actions, publication of information 

(including studies and data) in the dockets, or timely responses to requests under 

the Freedom of Information Act. If you do not believe in a transparent process, 

why not? 

If confirmed, transparency and openness will be priorities, and I will work to 

ensure that the pesticide registration process complies with all public 

notice and transparency requirements under the law. 

91. In June 2016 the White House Pollinator Health Task Force, which was cochaired by the EPA, released the Pollinator Partnership Action Plan. Do you 

support this plan and EPA's role in it? If not, why not? Mr. Pruitt, do you agree 

that vulnerable populations, like pregnant women, infants, and children, must be 

specifically considered in the study of the impacts of toxic chemicals on human 

health? Why is this important? 

I am not personally familiar with the report referenced in this question. In 

considering the health effects of chemicals, if confirmed as Administrator, I 

would expect to be briefed by EPA staff before taking action and would 

work to ensure EPA followed all applicable legal requirements and made its 

decisions based on sound science. If confirmed, I would also follow legal 

requirements regarding the use of science and consideration of health 

impacts on specific subpopulations. 

92. For nearly a decade, a state-permitted coal ash disposal pit in Bokoshe, OK, 

operated by a company named "Making Money Having Fun," has caused severe 

air pollution through releases of fugitive dust, which have harmed residents of the 

town of Bokoshe. Encompassing 458 acres, the Making Money Having Fun pit 

covers 259 acres of a former coal mine with enough coal ash to fill the 70-footdeep pit and create a miniature mountain stacked 50 feet high. The site is 

permitted to rise another 550 feet over the next 20 years. By 2036, the coal ash 

pit could hold 9.2 million tons of toxic waste. Since 1998, residents have 

complained about the toxic dust to state regulators. Residents of Bokoshe, 

particularly children, have experienced extremely high rates of asthma that are 

linked to high levels of fugitive dust. In addition, residents experience elevated 

cancer rates that may be linked to the dump site. In 2011, the CBS Nightly News 

covered the exposure of the community to toxic dust. See 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/oklahoma-town-fears-cancer-asthma-linked-dumpsite/story?id=13303440. In 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

acknowledged that there was a problem with fugitive dust at the site. Ash samples 

69 
809 

collected in Bokoshe contained elevated levels of the carcinogens hexavalent 

chromium and arsenic, among other toxic metals. The Making Money Having Fun 

pit is not the only unlined coal ash dump in a former mine in Oklahoma. Seven 

miles west of Bokoshe, in McCurtain, OK, coal ash protrudes like an iceberg from 

a water-soaked pit. McCurtain residents have complained about dust clouds, 

spurring two state notices alleging violations- one in 2011 and another in 2015. 

State records show seven similar coal ash dump sites permitted in the county 

where Bokoshe is located. 

•Did the Oklahoma AG Office ever investigate the Making Money Having Fun pit 

for environmental violations? 

•Did your office take any actions to require Making Money Having Fun to control 

fugitive emissions at the site? 

•As Oklahoma AG, what did your office do to investigate coal ash dumps in 

Oklahoma for violation of environmental or health standards? 

The matter you reference was handled by Oklahoma's environmental 

regulators at the Department of Environmental Quality. 

93. Mr. Pruitt, do you believe that all citizens in the U.S. should be equally 

protected from the threats posed by the dumping of coal ash? Currently, 

communities near municipal solid waste landfills and abandoned mines where 

millions of tons of toxic coal ash are disposed are not protected by the new federal 

coal ash rule. Do you think these communities deserve equal protection from 

pollution of their air, water and communities from coal ash? 

I do not question the importance of clean air, land, and water, and I believe 

all Americans should be treated equally under the law. 

94. Mr. Pruitt, do you think it is important for communities to know what hazardous 

substances are stored and disposed in their neighborhoods? Do you think it is 

important for citizens to know what hazardous substances are in their drinking 

water? If so, as head of EPA, will you guarantee that all coal ash permit programs 

approved by EPA will be as protective as the federal coal ash rule, including 

requiring communities be kept informed regarding the condition of toxic dumpsites 

near their homes and the safety of their drinking water? 

As discussed in my testimony, public participation and transparency will be 

among my priorities if confirmed as Administrator. I do not question the 

importance of clean drinking water. It would be inappropriate for me to 

prejudge an issue that may come before me for decision if I am confirmed 

as Administrator. If the issue comes before me, I will ensure that the issue is 

70 
810 

fully and fairly considered with input from staff, as part of a transparent 

process that seeks input from stakeholders, and that is consistent with 

EPA's statutory authorities, including the coal ash provision in the WIIN Act. 

95. Mr. Pruitt, environmental justice organizations have noted that 70 percent of 

coal ash dumps are located in low-income, disadvantaged communities. Do you 

agree that these communities deserve to know if coal ash ponds are leaking toxic 

substances into their drinking water supplies? Do you agree that these citizens 

have a right to expect that their drinking water be free of pollution from coal ash 

impoundments? 

I am not familiar with the reports referenced in the question. As my 

testimony indicates, if confirmed as Administrator, I will prioritize public 

participation and transparency. I believe all Americans should be treated 

equally under the law. 

96. In recent years, spills, leaks and collapses of coal ash impoundments have 

become a greater and greater hazard to clean water. In fact, more than half of the 

total toxic water pollution found in America's rivers, lakes and streams comes from 

such impoundments. Do you believe that coal ash from power plants and other 

coal-burning facilities should be regulated as a hazardous pollutant, given that its 

chemical composition includes lead, mercury, cadmium and arsenic? What would 

you do as Administrator to ensure that the kinds of ash spills recently devastating 

Kingston, Tennessee and Dan River, North Carolina, never again occur, 

anywhere? 

I am generally aware that EPA has recently determined that coal ash from 

power plants should be regulated as a non-hazardous waste under Subtitle 

D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and supports that 

decision. I understand provisions of the WIIN Act recently passed by 

Congress and signed into law provides EPA and states additional authority 

concerning the regulation of coal ash through permit programs. If 

confirmed, I will work to ensure this new authority is implemented. 

97. Mr. Pruitt, a growing body of scientific evidence has shown that people living 

near mountaintop removal coal mines face a number of increased health risks, 

including greater risk of cancer, birth defects, and premature death. If you are 

confirmed as EPA Administrator, how would your agency consider these health 

concerns? 

71 
811 

If confirmed, I would consider human health in accordance with EPA's legal 

authorities. 

98. Mr. Pruitt, do you believe that the people who live downstream from surface 

coal mining operations deserve to have their sources of drinking protected from 

contamination from toxic chemicals such as arsenic, selenium and lead? 

I strongly believe in the importance of safe drinking water, and if confirmed 

as Administrator, will work to implement EPA's statutory authorities in this 

regard. 

99. Mr. Pruitt, the Manhattan Project and the Cold War triggered a boom in 

uranium mining in the United States. Uranium mining was carried out under the 

1872 Mining Law, which did not require mining companies to clean up the mines. 

Abandoned uranium and other hard rock mines litter the West. These abandoned 

mines leach toxic chemicals, including uranium, radium, radon, and arsenic into 

surface and ground waters that are sources of drinking water. 

•Do you agree that there is insufficient funding to address the huge problem of 

abandoned uranium and other hardrock mines? 

•Do you agree that the 1872 Mining Law must be reformed to provide funding for 

the cleanup of abandoned mines? 

I have not studied the issue of whether the 1872 Mining Law should be 

reformed or whether there is sufficient funding to address the cleanup of 

abandoned mines. I am generally aware of questions about whether current 

environmental laws inhibit the cleanup of abandoned mines by Good 

Samaritans, but I would expect to be briefed by staff before considering any 

actions on this topic. 

100. The EPA is responsible for overseeing the cleanup of some of our nation's 

most contaminated lands. One such site is the West Lake Landfill, a Superfund 

site located in Bridgeton, Missouri. This site has been contaminated since 1973 

when soils were mixed with residues from the Manhattan Project and used as 

daily cover in the landfilling operation. Local residents are rightfully concerned 

and frustrated by delays at the EPA in determining a proper course of action for 

handling this radioactive waste. In the 114th Congress the Senate unanimously 

passed legislation that would transfer the remediation authority for West Lake to 

the Army Corps of Engineers' Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program 

(FUSRAP). FUSRAP is already successfully overseeing the cleanup of nuclear 

contamination at other sites in the St. Louis area. However, as of this moment, 

the authority over the West Lake site remains with the EPA Please explain your 

72 
812 

views on the EPA's authority and responsibility with regard to the cleanup of 

Superfund sites. 

•If you are confirmed as the next EPA Administrator, would you support 

transferring the cleanup of sites like the West Lake Landfill to FUSRAP? Why or 

why not? 

•If you support cleanup authority remaining with the EPA, what concrete steps 

would you pursue as Administrator to ensure that the agency is progressing 

toward a real solution at the site that protects both the environment and the health 

of area residents? 

I am not familiar with this particular issue or the legislation that is 

referenced in the question, but I appreciate the interests that residents have 

in the efficient operation of the Superfund program and the clean up of 

contaminated sites in their community. It would be inappropriate for me to 

prejudge an issue that may come before me for decision if I am confirmed 

as Administrator. If the issue comes before me, I will ensure that the issue is 

fully and fairly considered, as part of a transparent process that seeks input 

from all stakeholders. 

1 01. Do you believe that if safer technologies or chemicals are available for a 

facility to use, that could prevent a serious chemical disaster, that the facility 

should be required to implement them to save lives, prevent injuries of workers, 

first-responders, and community members, and prevent serious economic 

damages from a disaster? 

I believe workplace safety is very important and any potential regulatory 

decisions should be carefully examined through a open and transparent 

process to ensure facilities are not shifting to new chemicals or 

technologies that improve safety in one area but shift risks to create new 

and potentially more serious concerns. 

102. Do you believe that federal agencies like the EPA have an obligation to 

consult Native American tribes when actions by the agencies could impact tribal 

sovereignty or the tribal trust relationship? 

Yes, I believe that consultation is a sound practice that should occur 

whenever possible. 

73 
813 

103. Indigenous communities are consistently targeted for energy extraction, 

nuclear waste, uranium mining and/or oil and natural gas pipelines. How will you 

address this moving forward? 

If confirmed as Administrator, I will faithfully execute all laws enacted by 

Congress imposing obligations on me in this regard. Whenever possible, I 

will consult with Indian Tribes prior to taking actions that may affect their 

sovereign interests. 

104. As Administrator, what steps will you take to ensure that EPA and other 

federal agencies are complying with Executive Order 12989 on Environmental 

Justice? 

I am not familiar with what steps EPA has or has not taken undertaken to 

implement this Executive Order. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that EPA 

complies with all applicable Executive Orders. 

105. In January 2015, EPA issued its final rule under the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act defining what is a solid waste for purposes of ensuring that the 

recycling of hazardous materials does not increase the risk of harm to people or 

the environment, known as the "Definition of Solid Waste" or "DSW" rule. As an 

integral part of the rulemaking on the DSW rule, EPA conducted an environmental 

justice analysis of the rule's protectiveness for minority and low-income 

populations. EPA published its detailed environmental justice analysis report on 

the DSW Rule with the final rule. Will you ensure that EPA conduct detailed 

environmental justice analysis on all significant rules that may have adverse 

impacts on minority and low-income populations and publish such reports along 

with the final rules? 

I am not familiar with the environmental justice analysis referenced in this 

question. If confirmed, I will work to ensure EPA conducts the required 

analysis to support its regulatory actions in accordance with applicable 

statutory requirements and Executive Orders. 

106. There are currently some forty pending civil enforcement actions in which 

EPA is discussing possible settlement terms or pursuit of litigation. In the past 

during a transition in power such pending actions have proceeded unimpeded. 

Will you follow this precedent and let them progress at their own pace or will you 

intervene? And, if you do opt to intervene on a case-by-case basis, what criteria 

will you use to determine which enforcement cases go forward and which do not? 

74 
814 

I am unfamiliar with the specific details of the actions referenced in the 

question. I would expect to be briefed by staff, in consultation with the 

Department of Justice as appropriate, before taking any action. 

107. Please provide a list of all financial contributors to your attorney general and 

state senate campaigns, including their total donations and affiliations. 

A full list of contributors to my campaigns for the state senate and attorney 

general may be found at the Oklahoma Ethics Commission's websites. For 

state campaign committees from 2002-2014, please use this site: 

https:llwww.ok.gov/ethics/public/candidate.php. For 2015 to the present, 

the Commission uses this site: 

http:llguardian.ok.gov/PublicSite/SearchPages/Search.aspx?SearchTypeCo 

deHook=1 F26BA5E-71 EA-48E4-8050-C1 013E9FEOA7. Attached is a letter 

from the Oklahoma Ethics Commission regarding materials prior to 2002. 

1 08. Why did you initially refuse a formal, independent audit of your office's 

finances from the Oklahoma State Auditor and Inspector as mandated by 

Oklahoma law? Please provide a copy of the findings of the 2016 audit. 

I did not refuse an audit. I requested that an independent auditor conduct 

the audit, rather than the State Auditor. The State Auditor ultimately agreed 

to not participate in the audit, and the audit was completed. The results are 

publicly available. 

109. Do you know Mr. Fount Holland of A.H. Strategies? If so, what is your 

relationship? 

I am familiar with Mr. Holland. I have no relationship with him. 

110. Do you know Continental Resources CEO Harold Hamm and if so, what is 

your relationship with him? 

Yes. Harold Hamm is a friend. 

111. You were a board member of the Rule of Law Defense Fund from November 

2015 to November 2016. As a nonprofit, that organization doesn't have to disclose 

its donors. But the tax filings of the Koch brothers' Freedom Partners Foundation 

show that it contributed $175,000 of the group's $885,000 in 2014, nearly 20 

75 
815 

percentage the total. Was the Koch brothers' Freedom Partner's Foundation the 

largest contributor to the Rule of Law Defense Fund? Did that Foundation have 

any say with respect to the Fund's activities? 

I have no knowledge of whether the Freedom Partners' donation was the 

largest contributor to Rule of Law Defense Fund. I have resigned as 

Chairman and as a board member, and those records are kept by the staff of 

Rule of Law Defense Fund. RLDF's policies at the time I was a board 

member were that donors did not have any say with respect to the fund's 

activities. 

112. The Rule of Law Defense Fund is an affiliate of the Republican Attorneys 

General Association, which has received more than $2.25 million in funding from 

fossil fuel interests since 2015-money that goes primarily to help elect GOP 

attorneys general, according to an analysis of its activities by the Center for Media 

and Democracy. What are the fossil fuel-related activities of the Fund? Has the 

Fund supported or undertaken any public interest or environmental protection 

activities? 

To my knowledge, RLDF has facilitated policy discussion on a wide range of 

issues, including many public interest and environmental protection issues, 

some of which may have some nexus to matters involving fossil fuels. 

113. The Huffington Post reported this week that two election fund raising groups, 

Oklahoma Strong and Liberty 2.0, both linked to you spent at least $637,034 since 

the start of 2015, even though you couldn't run for re-election as Oklahoma 

attorney general. These groups disbursed an average of roughly $26,543 per 

month, both of which announced plans last week to shut down. Would you 

describe for the Committee where these funds went? Is the Huffington Post's 

characterization that these funds money went to consultants and travel correct? 

And what were the specific activities conducted with these funds? 

I do not have any knowledge of where remaining funds from Oklahoma 

Strong PAC or Liberty 2.0 went after the entities closed. Both entities are 

managed by a staff and decisions are made independently of me. 

114. Has Oklahoma Strong or Liberty 2.0 taken money from the fossil fuel 

industry? 

This question would have to be directed to those that operate those entities. 

76 
816 

115. Has any of the special interest money gone to other Attorneys General that 

may or may not sue the EPA if you are confirmed? 

Without additional context to help me understand your question, I cannot 

answer it. 

116. Has any of this special interest money gone to any member of the EPW 

Committee that will vote on your confirmation and serve as your oversight 

committee in the Senate if you are confirmed? 

Without additional context to help me understand your question, I cannot 

answer it. In any event, I have no knowledge of the fundraising activities of 

the members of this committee. 

117. Before being confirmed, will you disclose who has contributed to the 

Oklahoma Strong PAC and Liberty 2.0 Super PAC? 

I do not personally have records of who has contributed to Oklahoma 

Strong PAC or Liberty 2.0 Super PAC. That information is publicly available 

on campaign finance reports, and in the possession of the staff of those 

entities. 

118. Please provide the dates and the name of every event you attended as 

attorney general that was hosted by energy companies, energy representatives, 

energy lobbyists, or political action committees (PACs) that have energy donors. 

Please see attached list. 

119. For each listed matter in which the State of Oklahoma has been a litigant or 

petitioner against the EPA, please provide any and all documents (including any 

and all written or electronic correspondence, audiotapes, electronic records, 

videotapes, photographs, telephone messages, voice mail messages, e-mails, 

facsimiles, daily agendas and calendars, information about meetings and/or 

discussions, whether in-person or over the telephone, agendas, minutes and a list 

of participants for those meetings and/or discussions, and transcripts and notes of 

any such meetings and/or discussions) from the date on which your office first 

began to prepare the litigation at hand, to the date of this letter, between you (or 

other employees of your office) and each representative of each non77 
817 

governmental entity with whom you (or your office) communicated about the 

litigation. 

In order for you to receive a comprehensive response to a voluminous 

request of that nature, I would direct you to make a request of the Oklahoma 

Attorney General's Office under the Oklahoma Open Records Act. 

120. Of the total outlays from the Attorney General's office during your tenure, 

what percentage of your office's expenditures in Oklahoma went toward suing the 

federal government or challenging federal regulations? 

My understanding is that less than one percent of the Office of the Attorney 

General's budget has been for litigation involving legal challenges to federal 

actions. 

121. How many legal cases did your predecessor bring against industry in 

Oklahoma or other states for violating federal or state environmental protections? 

How many similar cases have you brought during your tenure? Please identify 

each such case brought under your tenure, the nature of the violation alleged, and 

the result achieved, including any penalties assessed and collected. 

I do not know how many cases were brought by my predecessor. The 

Department of Environmental Quality is primarily responsible for 

implementing and enforcing environmental laws in Oklahoma. The Office of 

Attorney General has historically had a limited role, compared to the 

Department of Environmental Quality, in litigating environmental 

enforcement cases. Information about environmental cases attorneys in my 

office have litigated during my tenure is included in this response. 

122. Do the Oklahoma Strong PAC and Liberty 2.0 Super PAC continue to 

operate from your state campaign headquarters in Tulsa? What is your 

connection to either of these political action committees? Do any of your former 

campaign employees work for either of these political action committees, if so, 

who and for what period of time? 

It is my understanding that both entities have been wound down. I 

previously served as Honorary Chairman of Oklahoma Strong PAC, I have 

not served in any similar role with Liberty 2.0. My understanding is that 

there have been common vendors between Oklahoma Strong PAC and my 

previous campaigns, but I am not personally aware of any contracts those 

78 
818 

vendors might have with the PACs, so your question regarding the details 

of any such relationships would need to be directed to the PACs or the 

vendors. 

123. How much money have fossil fuel interests given to the Republican 

Attorneys Generals Association during the duration of your service in the 

leadership of that organization? 

Other issues 

Records of fundraising for that organization are kept with the staff of the 

Republican Attorneys General Association, and are also disclosed on 

campaign finance reports filed by that entity. I am not aware how much 

money has been donated to RAGA or from whom. 

124. At a time of state budget cuts in Oklahoma, why did the attorney general's 

office expenditures increase from $28 million to $37.5 million under your 

leadership? 

The budget cuts you refer to relate to reductions in the appropriations that 

each agency receives from the Legislature. I believe the Office of Attorney 

General has seen its appropriation from the Legislature cut every year since 

2014, culminating in an appropriation of $0 this last fiscal year. What can 

lead to confusion is the fact that the appropriation from the Legislature 

makes up only a portion of the Office of Attorney General's budget, and the 

Office's budget and expenditures can fluctuate greatly year over year 

depending on the timing of case settlements and related distributions. For 

example in fiscal year 2014, the Attorney General's Office distributed higher 

than normal case settlement funds that inflated the budget over typical 

levels. Conversely, that total came down in fiscal years 2015 and 2016. 

Thus, fluctuations such as the one assumed by your question do not 

accurately reflect the size of the Office's budget. In my tenure as Attorney 

General, the Oklahoma Office of the Attorney General streamlined legal 

services for dozens of agencies, returned $29 million to the General 

Revenue Fund, distributed mortgage settlement restitution funds to 

impacted citizens, strengthened tobacco enforcement, and led the Office in 

such a fiscally responsible manner that the Office was able to forego all $6.4 

million in state-appropriated operating funds for fiscal year 2017--that in 

addition to the Office having its annual appropriation cut in every prior year. 

The Office of Attorney General was the only state agency to voluntarily do 

this. During my tenure, the Office assumed the statutory duties of the 

Human Rights Commission through our Office of Civil Rights Enforcement, 

strengthened tobacco settlement enforcement efforts, and launched the 

Solicitor General's Unit. The Office also increased by one third the number 

79 
819 

of agencies, commissions, or boards which it represents. This has led to a 

precipitous decline in state agency usage of costly private counsel. It is 

these and other efforts that have permitted the Office to contribute 

approximately $29 million to the General Revenue Fund over the last six 

years. 

125. Do you think the upwind or upstream states of Oklahoma would be willing to 

impose more stringent environmental protections because of the adverse impacts 

certain activities in their state might have on Oklahomans? Have they ever done 

so on their own? 

The Department of Environmental Quality has primary responsibility for 

implementing and enforcing environmental laws in Oklahoma. As Attorney 

General, I do not have responsibility or authority for setting environmental 

policy for the State and do not have the specific information at issue in this 

question. 

126. Do your views on federalism expand beyond the EPA? For example, were 

you against the recently passed legislation that pre-empted states from labeling 

GMO foods? If not, why not? 

I did not have an opinion on the GMO labeling legislation, however, I view 

that it is a similar matter to the Lautenberg Act reforms to TSCA which we 

supported despite its pre-empting state regulation, because it provides 

certainty nation-wide to regulations and often a consensus federal standard. 

127. You campaigned in 2010 against a "one-size-fits-all strategy" towards 

environmental protection. That phrase is sometimes used to imply that whether 

American children should be adequately- or inadequately- protected against 

poisonous air, water and food should be based on the political jurisdiction in which 

they happen to live. Is that what you meant- that air and water health standards 

should vary from state to state? Do children's hearts or senior's lungs vary in their 

vulnerability to pollution between Oklahomans and Californians? Do you accept 

the premise at the heart of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts that every 

American, wherever they live, should have a science based, legally guaranteed 

right to clean air, pure water and healthy food? Or do you think these decisions 

should be made by local politicians based on interest group lobbying? 

I strongly believe in the importance of clean air, water, and land. Many of 

the environmental laws passed by Congress, including the Clean Air Act, 

are based on a framework of cooperative federalism by which states 

80 
820 

administer programs authorized or delegated by EPA in order to implement 

these authorities. If confirmed, I will support open and transparent 

regulatory processes and base decisions on sound science in accordance 

with EPA's legal authorities. 

128. How do you plan to consider costs in reviewing national ambient air quality 

standards? Do you agree with Justice Scalia's opinion in Whitman v. American 

Trucking Associations that it is "fairly clear that [the Clean Air Act] does not permit 

the EPA to consider costs in setting the standards." 

I agree that the Supreme Court's decision in Whitman v. American Trucking 

Associations confirms that the Clean Air Act does not allow the 

Administrator to consider costs in setting the NAAQS. 

129. Do you believe that economic or cost-benefit analysis should ever be used to 

decide how much toxic pollution children should breathe or drink; many lives EPA 

should save; how many children should get cancer or asthma just because they 

live near a polluting factory? 

As I stated in my testimony, I fundamentally believe in EPA's core mission 

of protecting the American people. Environmental statutes, such as the 

Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, prescribe certain instances where a 

cost-benefit analysis may be considered in a rulemaking. If confirmed, I 

commit to fully carry out EPA's core mission and follow the law as provided 

by Congress. 

130. Every year during your tenure as Oklahoma Attorney General, the American 

Lung Association gave Oklahoma counties a failing grade for not meeting ozone 

air pollution health standards. In fact, your home town of Tulsa is ranked 18th out 

of 228 metropolitan areas for high alert ozone days. Are you concerned about the 

impacts of soot and smog pollution on Oklahoma citizens? What efforts have you 

undertaken as Oklahoma Attorney General to protect Oklahomans from soot and 

smog pollution? 

While I am concerned about children's health, matters of the sort you 

reference would be handled by Oklahoma's environmental regulators at the 

Department of Environmental Quality and the Oklahoma Water Resources 

Board. 

81 
821 

131. If confirmed, do you commit to protecting scientific research conducted and 

funded by the EPA? Will you continue EPA's long-standing practice of protecting 

the confidentiality of health records of individual patients that participate in 

scientific studies? 

If confirmed, it will look forward to working with EPA's scientists and the 

thousands of other public servants at EPA. If confirmed, I would expect to 

learn more about the existing practice and relevant legal authorities 

concerning the confidentiality of scientific data before taking action. 

132. Do you agree with this statement from NASA: "97 percent or more of actively 

publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century 

are extremely likely due to human activities." If not, please explain why you do not 

agree. 

I have no reason to disagree with NASA's statement, although I have not 

made any attempt to independently verify its accuracy. 

133. Please provide a list of all the cases, briefs and other legal actions that your 

office has filed while you have served as attorney general. 

Please see attached list. 

134. How many legal cases have you filed, or joined others in filing, against the 

EPA? Please provide a full list with the outcome of each case, including those 

cases in which the court disagreed with your argument, agreed with your 

argument, and those in which the court refused to hear the matter. 

Enclosed is a list of the relevant cases. The relevant court opinions, 

judgments, or orders are the best source of information· about how these 

cases were disposed. 

135. It is my understanding that you currently have nine cases pending against 

the EPA on behalf of the State of Oklahoma. Is this correct? Will you recuse 

yourself from participation in these cases if you are confirmed? If not, why not? 

Will you recuse yourself from settlement discussions? If not, why not? Will you 

recuse yourself from decision making on altering or revising the regulations that 

are impacted by these pending cases? If not, why not? What are the recusal 

requirements of the Oklahoma Bar Association governing similar situations? 

82 
822 

Please see attached list of cases. Immediately upon my nomination, I was 

walled off from all involvement in any litigation or other matters the State of 

Oklahoma is pursuing involving the EPA. I have disclosed relevant matters 

to the Office of Government Ethics and EPA ethics officials. As EPA 

Administrator I will recuse from participation in litigation in matters in which 

I represented the State of Oklahoma, unless I receive informed consent from 

the State of Oklahoma and the permission of relevant federal ethics 

officials. It is my understanding that recusal obligations do not extend to 

regulatory rulemaking of general applicability, which does not create a 

conflict under applicable rules. 

136. If confirmed, do you plan on proposing or advocating for budget cuts to the 

EPA's FY 2018 budget? If so, in which programs would you reduce funding? 

Would you target the EPA's research programs? Are there areas of agency action 

where you believe additional financial resources are needed? 

I have no first-hand knowledge of EPA's development of its FY 2018 budget 

request. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the limited resources 

appropriated to EPA by Congress are managed wisely in pursuit of that 

important mission and in accordance with all applicable legal authorities. 

137. It is my understanding that prior to you taking office, there was an 

Environmental Protection Unit within the Oklahoma Attorney General's office. Is 

that correct? 

The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality is the State agency 

responsible for implementing and enforcing environmental laws in 

Oklahoma. 

138. It is my understanding that after you took office, the Environmental Protection 

Unit within the Oklahoma Attorney General's office was eliminated. Is that 

correct? Can you explain why the work of this unit was discontinued? Did the work 

continue in another section of your office? If so, who continued to do that work 

and for what period of time? 

My office continues to employ attorneys vested with responsibilities related 

to environmental protection, including the attorney who served as the lead 

attorney on the previous attorney general's "environmental protection unit." 

That attorney's responsibilities remain unchanged (he has been promoted, 

in fact), and he pursues exactly the kind of cases that he pursued under the 

previous attorney general. The only thing that changed was the internal 

83 
823 

organization of the attorneys vested with those responsibilities, because I 

concluded (consistent with the practices of every attorney general in the 

State's history but for my immediate predecessor) that it was not 

operationally efficient to have a separate unit for such work. Thus, I chose 

to house that work in the Office's Public Protection Unit and then later in the 

Solicitor General's Unit. As I explained in my testimony to the committee, 

my office continues to pursue environmental cases. I do not possess lists of 

cases pursued my predecessor so I cannot provide the comparative that 

you request. I am aware that many environmental cases take many, many 

years to litigate to completion, so some of the actions that my Office 

continues to pursue were initiated prior to my taking office. Please see 

attached list of cases. 

139. In your cases against the EPA's Mercury and Air Taxies Rule, who served as 

your scientific advisor for the case? 

The Office of Attorney General does not have a science advisor. 

140. Please provide your definition of cooperative federalism. 

Cooperative federalism occurs when the federal government works 

cooperatively with state and local governments to address issues of 

national concern. Federalism is not cooperative when the federal 

government mandates or coerces state and local governments into 

effectuating federal policies. 

141. Provide examples of times the EPA has intervened and required a state to 

do more than the state intended and you supported the EPA's actions. 

The water quality crisis in Flint is one where EPA should have acted faster in 

accordance with its legal authorities in consultation with the State. 

142. You are quoted in an interview this past November saying "we hope there is 

going to be regulatory rollback ... Well when you look at the EPA, and the role it's 

played over the last several years, there's going to be substantial change in that 

agency." Which EPA regulations do you believe should be rolled back? What 

changes do you believe should occur in the EPA? Which EPA regulations should 

be maintained? 

Based on the limited information provided in the question, I am uncertain 

what interview it is referring to. However, if confirmed as Administrator, I 

84 
824 

will take my responsibility to protect human health and the environment for 

all Americans with the highest possible dedication and commitment. The 

actions undertaken by the Office of Attorney General challenging certain 

EPA regulations have been because EPA exceeded it legal authorities as 

established by Congress and interpreted by the courts. Regulations that 

are not on solid legal foundation and that cannot survive judicial review will 

not result in environmental protections. 

143. In your testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works 

Committee in May 2015, you stated that the EPA "has played an important role in 

addressing water and air quality issues that transverse state lines." Since you 

became attorney general, hasn't your state sued against EPA regulations that 

address cross-state air and water pollution? What are the most significant sources 

of interstate pollution and what are the most important actions the EPA can take 

to address them? 

As my testimony indicates, I firmly believe that the EPA plays an important 

role in addressing interstate water and air quality issues, but it must do so 

within the bounds of its legal authority. The actions undertaken by the 

Office of Attorney General challenging certain EPA regulations have been 

because EPA exceeded it legal authorities as established by Congress and 

interpreted by the courts. 

144. Do you believe the EPA has, in your words "exceeded the constraints placed 

upon the agency by Congress" by issuing the Mercury and Air Taxies Rule? If so, 

please explain. 

Based on the limited information in the question, the source or context of 

the quote to which the question refers is not readily apparent. Twenty one 

states filed a petition with the Supreme Court to review EPA's Mercury Air 

Taxies Standards. The Supreme Court held that the EPA was required to 

consider costs as part of its decision whether to regulate power plants 

under section 112. I agree with the Supreme Court's conclusion. 

145. Do you support states taking further public health protective actions beyond 

those required by EPA regulations? 

Yes-if authorized under the law and not preempted or displaced by federal 

law. 

85 
825 

146. Do you agree with the EPA's legal interpretation of the Clean Water Act and 

share the view the agency has federal jurisdiction over wetlands and streams that 

impact the health of downstream navigable waters? If you do not agree, please 

explain. 

The EPA takes a broader view of its jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act 

than the question suggests. A federal court appeals has held that the EPA's 

interpretation of its jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act is likely unlawful. 

I agree with that court's conclusion. 

147. Would you explain the basis for your recent challenges to EPA's finding that 

it is appropriate and necessary to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and 

hazardous air pollutants from power plants? 

The particular matters being asked about are unclear from the limited 

information in the question. As discussed in response to Questions 27 and 

35, the state of Oklahoma, along with many other states, filed petitions for 

review challenging EPA regulations in matters where EPA has exceeded its 

statutory authority as established by Congress and interpreted by the 

courts. The standard for regulating under section 111 of the Clean Air Act is 

whether in the Administrator's judgment a category of sources "causes, or 

contributes significantly, to air pollution which may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." The standard for 

regulating under section 112(n) of the Clean Air Act is if "the Administrator 

finds such regulation is appropriate and necessary after considering the 

results of the study required by this subparagraph." The briefs filed by the 

state petitioners are the best statements of the legal arguments being made 

and speak for themselves. 

148. As attorney general, what types of environmental justice cases have you 

pursued? Please provide a list of cases and outcomes. What is your view of 

EPA's mission in regard to environmental justice? 

As discussed elsewhere in these responses, the Oklahoma Department of 

Environmental Quality is the state agency with primary responsibility for 

implementing and enforcing environmental laws in Oklahoma. As I testified, 

I believe the Administrator plays an important role regarding environmental 

justice. Attached is a list of environmental cases brought under my tenure. 

86 
826 

149. In a 2013 press statement, you stated "the evidence is clear that the current 

ethanol fuel mandate is unworkable." Would you explain what you meant at this 

time? 

Based on the limited information in the question, the context of the quote 

referenced in the question is not readily apparent. If confirmed, my duty as 

EPA Administrator would be to enforce the laws passed by this body. 

150. In your joint brief against the Mercury and Air Taxies Standards, it stated 

"human exposure to methylmercury resulting from coal fired EGUs (Electric 

Generating Units) is exceedingly small." What is the scientific basis for this 

statement? Do you continue to agree with this assessment? 

Based on the limited information in the question, the source or context of 

the quote to which the question refers is not readily apparent. Twenty one 

states filed a petition with the Supreme Court to review EPA's Mercury Air 

Taxies Standards. The legal question in that case was a narrow one 

focused on whether EPA was required to consider costs before it imposed 

regulations on power plants under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. 

151. The EPA is responsible for administering two of the nation's most important 

infrastructure investment programs- the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water 

State Revolving Loan Funds (SRFs). Unfortunately, water and sewer 

infrastructure in this country continues to deteriorate and investment is sorely 

needed. The American Society of Civil Engineers rates our wastewater and 

drinking water infrastructure a "D." If confirmed, what will you do to ensure that the 

federal government is adequately investing in our nation's wastewater and 

drinking water infrastructure? 

If confirmed, I will continue support for the Clean Water State Revolving 

Loan Funds and the new Water Infrastructure Financing Innovation Act loan 

program. In addition, I would continue to implement EPA's Integrated 

Planning Framework to provide municipalities with flexibility to prioritize 

actions they take to come into compliance. 

87 
827 

Senator Duckworth: 

1. During your confirmation hearing, we discussed the ongoing petitions 

requesting EPA initiate a rulemaking to reconsider or change the regulations 

identifying refiners and importers of gasolines and diesel fuel as the entities 

responsible for complying with the annual percentage standards adopted under 

the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. I am specifically concerned with 

harmful proposals to move the point of obligation from refiners and importers to 

entities that blend renewable fuel into transportation fuel. Moving the point of 

obligation from refiners to blenders would disrupt a component of the RFS 

program that has worked well for the past 10 years. This harmful proposal is 

opposed by a broad range of stakeholders, including organizations that represent 

blenders, and it would undermine Congress' goal in creating the RFS program by 

likely decreasing the production, distribution and use of renewable fuels in the 

United States. 

• If confirmed as EPA Administrator, will you commit to denying any petition 

requesting EPA change the RFS point of obligation, including requests to move 

the point of obligation from refiners to blenders? 

• Please provide all statements you have made, whether in writing or verbally, 

expressing your view on the RFS point of obligation. 

As I indicated in my testimony, the EPA's RIN framework is currently the 

subject of a pending notice-and-comment rulemaking. If confirmed as 

Administrator, I would take care to administer the RFS program, including 

the RIN framework, in accordance with Congress's statutory objectives, and 

based on the evidence in the EPA's administrative record, as well as the 

expertise of EPA staff and the expertise of other federal agencies relevant to 

the RIN framework and affected markets. The EPA already has entered into 

a "memorandum of understanding" with the CFTC, "on the sharing of 

information available to EPA related to the functioning of renewable fuel and 

related markets." 

88 
828 

Senator Gillibrand: 

1.Assuming that costs should be considered in rulemakings, do you believe that 

externality costs- for example costs to society from impacts of a pollutant--

should be considered in addition to the financial costs of compliance? 

As I stated at the hearing, costs are important in the rulemaking process 

and the Courts have recognized that important factor. Environmental 

statutes, such as the Clean Air Act, prescribe when costs should be 

considered in a rulemaking. If confirmed, I commit to fully follow the law as 

provided by Congress. 

2.New York has the toughest acid rain regulations for power plants in the nation, 

but the acid rain that has affected the Adirondacks is predominately caused by 

emissions from Midwestern coal-fired power plants. The scientific data collected 

as part of a long-term and robust acid rain monitoring program of Adirondack 

lakes and streams provides the evidence that the sulfur dioxide trading program 

under the Clean Air Act has been a cost effective method to reduce sulfur dioxide 

from the atmosphere. This regulatory strategy was implemented without a 

detrimental economic effect. Is the regulatory strategy outlined above: strong 

federal standards coupled with even stronger state standards an example of the 

"meaningful role" you envision for EPA and the "useful role of the states?" 

As I stated at the hearing, costs are very important in the rulemaking 

process and the Courts have recognized that important factor. 

Environmental statutes, such as the Clean Air Act, prescribe when costs 

should be considered in a rulemaking. If confirmed, I commit to fully follow 

the law as provided by Congress. 

3.EPA promulgated the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) in 2011 and an 

update to the rule in September 2016. How will you implement CSAPR and the 

update rules? 

The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule is a regulation that is currently in effect 

and, as such, constitutes a binding regulation. So long as that rule remains 

in force, I will faithfully execute the law and enforce obligations under it. 

89 
829 

4.What strategy will you pursue to ensure upwind emissions do not affect the 

ability of downwind states to meet air quality standards, per Section 11 O(a)(2)(D) 

of the Clean Air Act? 

As I stated in my testimony before the Committee, I agree that the Clean Air 

Act gives EPA an important role in addressing interstate pollution issues, 

among many other things. If I am confirmed as Administrator, I will exercise 

my authority in this area consistent with Congress's intent in enacting the 

Act. Specifically with respect to Section 110(a)(2)(D) and the "good 

neighbor" obligations of Section 110, I intend to engage in a transparent 

process that will allow states to have a meaningful opportunity to 

understand their obligations with regard to reducing emissions that cause 

or contribute to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other 

states through the SIP process and to act consistent with my authority 

under Section 110(c) if states fail to do so. 

5. What is EPA's role in resolving disputes regarding the transport of pollutants 

between states? 

As I stated in my testimony before the Committee, I agree that the Clean Air 

Act gives EPA an important role in addressing interstate pollution issues, 

among many other things. I strongly believe in states working 

collaboratively to address cross border environmental challenges and did so 

when I was the Attorney General of Oklahoma, including negotiating a 

historic agreement with my Democratic counterpart in the State of Arkansas 

to reduce pollutants into the scenic Illinois River. As Administrator, I intend 

to provide assistance to states as they work collaboratively in these issues. 

Where the Act contemplates a more direct role for EPA, such as with 

respect to Section 110(a)(2)(D) and the "good neighbor" obligations of 

Section 110, I intend to engage in a transparent process that will allow 

states to have a meaningful opportunity to understand their obligations with 

regard to reducing emissions that cause or contribute to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance in other states through the SIP process 

6. What specific actions have you taken as Oklahoma Attorney General to protect 

Oklahoma's children from exposure to air pollution? 

While I am also concerned about children's health, environmental regulation 

in Oklahoma is the responsibility of Oklahoma's environmental regulators at 

agencies like the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. That 

agency would likely be better situated to answer your question by actions 

taken by the State with regard to air pollution. 

90 
830 

7. Does state sovereignty includes a state's authority to combat impacts to air and 

water from pollution generated in other states? 

Yes. 

8.The EPA Clean Air Science Advisory Committee currently fills a role that The 

Clean Air Act requires; this role is that of an independent scientific committee to 

advise the Administrator regarding any possible revisions to the national 

standards (NAAQS). That advisory committee has stated on record that the ozone 

NAAQS should be more protective than the current standards. Will you follow the 

advice of the advisory committee as Administrator? 

I agree that the Clean Air Act assigns the advisory committee a role in 

advising the Administrator regarding the promulgation and revision of 

NAAQS. If confirmed as Administrator, I will follow a transparent process 

that is legally and scientifically sound in all NAAQS decisions, including 

consideration of the views of the advisory committee. 

9. What role will the opinions of that advisory committee play in any decisionmaking you might have to do regarding review of and revisions to the NAAQS? 

I agree that the Clean Air Act assigns the advisory committee a role in 

advising the Administrator regarding the promulgation and revision of 

NAAQS. If confirmed as Administrator, I will follow a transparent process 

that is legally and scientifically sound in all NAAQS decisions, including 

consideration of the views of the advisory committee. 

1 O.ln the April 22, 2016 State Petitioners' Opening Brief that you signed seeking 

to vacate EPA's primary NAAQS of 70 ppm, you wrote that "that EPA must 

consider the burden of a NAAQS." What did you mean by the burden of a 

NAAQS? 

The Clean Air Act requires the Administrator to establish NAAQS that 

protect public health and welfare from adverse effects, allowing an adequate 

margin of safety, and to revise those standards as appropriate. This 

includes establishing NAAQS at a level that is "requisite," which the 

Supreme Court has interpreted as being neither more nor less stringent 

than necessary to protect public health. The State Petitioners' Opening 

Brief, particularly in Section II of the Argument portion, the part of the brief 

to which the quotation in your question is relevant, argues that the ozone 

NAAQS is arbitrary and capricious because it fails to interpret the Act in a 

manner that ensures the standard is "requisite." As I have explained 

elsewhere in my testimony to the Committee and in response to the 

Committee's written questions, all legal positions that I took in my capacity 

as Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma were in an advocacy 

91 
831 

capacity. If confirmed as Administrator, I will consider all matters presented 

to me with an open mind and will work to reach conclusions that are 

reflected in the administrative record of each matter and that comport with 

Congress's intent in enacting the Act. 

11.What is the burden on individuals who are exposed to, and suffer health effects 

from, air pollution if NAAQS are not strong enough to protect public health? 

The Clean Air Act requires the Administrator to establish NAAQS that 

protect public health and welfare from adverse effects, allowing an adequate 

margin of safety, and to revise those standards as appropriate. Individuals 

exposed to pollutant concentrations that are above the NAAQS may suffer 

adverse health effects, the specifics of which vary depending on the 

pollutant at issue. 

12.How will you take into consideration the cost of pollution on human health 

when taking regulatory action? 

As I stated in my testimony, if confirmed, my primary goal would be to 

protect the American people through lawful regulations. I also indicated at 

the hearing that costs are very important in the rulemaking process and the 

Courts have recognized that important factor. I understand environmental 

statutes, such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, prescribe when 

costs should be considered in the rulemaking process. If confirmed, I 

commit to fully follow the law as provided by Congress. 

13.New York is very concerned with the interstate transport of ozone and 

particulate matter, which cause death and illness in our state and damages our 

natural resources, but also interferes with New York's ability to meet its legal 

obligation to attain the national standards set by EPA. Can ground-level ozone or 

its precursor, nitrogen oxides, can be generated in one state and reduce air 

quality in another state? 

Yes. 

14.Can fine particulate matter or its precursors, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, 

be generated in one state and reduce air quality in another state? 

Yes. 

15.EPA's regulatory impact analysis enumerated numerous important categories 

of mercury benefits that the agency found couldn't be monetized, such as the 

impacts of mercury on non-IQ neurological impacts (including developmental 

92 
832 

delays, effects on attention/behavior, effects on motor skills, effects on memory); 

cardiovascular impacts; genotoxic, immunologic, and other toxic effects. 

•Do you agree that mercury has these impacts? 

•Do you agree that the benefits of reducing these impacts are valuable? 

•Do you think that avoided harms, like reducing childhood development delays, 

need to be monetized to count as part of a cost-benefit analysis? 

•Do you agree that consideration of a monetized cost-benefit analysis that does 

not include these benefits because they cannot be monetized is an incomplete 

picture of the costs and benefits of reducing mercury emissions? 

I agree that as Administrator, it is appropriate to consider both the 

monetized benefits of regulation and benefits that cannot be monetized. 

Likewise, where appropriate in light of Congress's intent in enacting each 

Clean Air Act provision, I agree that it is appropriate to consider both the 

monetized costs of regulation and any other negative impacts, regardless of 

whether those can be monetized. If I am confirmed as Administrator, I will 

exercise my authority consistent with Congress's intent in enacting the Act. 

16.1n your comments at the EPW nomination hearing, you claimed that your 

challenges to the mercury standards were entirely procedural in nature. 

•In your brief challenging the original mercury standard, you asserted that "the 

record does not support EPA's findings that mercury, non-mercury HAP metals, 

and acid gas HAPs pose public health hazards." Explain how this is a procedural 

claim. 

•In your brief challenging the original mercury standard, you asserted that "EPA's 

EGU MACT standards are unlawful under §112(n){1 )(A)." Explain how this is a 

procedural claim. 

•In signing the original petitioners' brief, were you just advocating for a client? Or 

do you continue to believe all the positions argued in the original petitioners' brief 

are correct? 

•In your brief challenging EPA's supplemental finding, you asserted that "EPA 

must consider costs in relation to benefits to justify its 'appropriate and necessary' 

determination." Explain how this is a procedural claim. 

•In your brief challenging EPA's supplemental finding, you asserted that EPA's 

'"alternative' benefit-cost approach is also invalid because it is based on the 'CoBenefits' of reducing pollutants other than HAPs." Explain how this is a procedural 

claim. 

•In your brief challenging EPA's supplemental finding, you asserted that "EPA's 

refusal to consider alternative control strategies and all relevant costs, is contrary 

93 
833 

to the statute and the Supreme Court's direction." Explain how this is a procedural 

claim. 

In my testimony, when I stated that Oklahoma's challenges were procedural 

in nature, I was referring to whether EPA acted consistent with law and the 

record in following the procedure set forth for regulating electric utility 

steam generating units under Section 112(n) of the Act. That procedure 

required EPA, taking into account certain information, to determine whether 

regulating the sources under Section 112 is appropriate and necessary. 

17.When filing briefs for Oklahoma in the Mercury and Air Taxies Standard 

litigation, Clean Power Plan litigation, and other litigation against EPA that you 

joined as Attorney General, were you just advocating for a client? Or do you 

continue to believe all the positions argued in your briefs are correct? 

As I stated in my testimony to the committee, all legal positions that I took 

in my capacity as Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma were in an 

advocacy capacity. If confirmed as Administrator, I will consider all matters 

presented to me with an open mind and will work to reach conclusions that 

are reflected in the administrative record of each matter and that comport 

with Congress's intent in enacting the Act. 

18.The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) was launched in 2010 to 

accelerate efforts to protect and restore the largest system of fresh surface water 

in the world -the Great Lakes. EPA is a critical member and lead of the GLRI 

Task Force and Regional Working Group. This coordination in partnership with 

the states has produced unprecedented results, with GRLI resources funding over 

2,000 projects to improve water quality, protecting and restoring native habitat and 

species, preventing and controlling invasive species, and addressing other Great 

Lakes environmental problems. Under your leadership, will the GLRI continue to 

be a top priority? 

If confirmed, I will continue EPA's support for the Great Lakes Restoration 

Initiative, which was formally authorized by Congress in December 2016. 

19.Will you support an annual appropriation of at least $300 million for the Great 

Lakes Restoration Initiative? 

I note that $300 million has been the annual appropriation for the Great 

Lakes Restoration Initiative for the past several years, even though the prior 

Administration proposed to cut that funding to $250 million. Three hundred 

94 
834 

million also is the Congressional authorized level of funding. If confirmed, I 

will take into account that funding history and Congressional authorization 

when making recommendations to the Office of Management and Budget 

regarding EPA's appropriations. 

20.New York is suffering from infestations of invasive species such as the 

emerald ash borer and zebra mussel, which have large impacts in the state. EPA 

has been an important ally in our efforts, and has a number of programs that fight 

invasive species. What is your view on EPA's role in fighting invasive species, and 

do you believe EPA should commit more resources, fewer resources, or about the 

same amount of resources to this issue? 

I am not aware of the state of invasive species in New York. If confirmed, I 

would expect to be briefed by staff on this issue before taking any action 

consistent with EPA's legal authorities. 

21. Does climate change have an impact on the spread of invasive species, such 

as the emerald ash borer, in New York State? 

I am not familiar with the state of invasive species in New York. 

22.Should states continue to have the sovereign authority to set their own ballast 

water discharge standards to protect the environment from the spread of invasive 

species? 

The issue of federal preemption of state ballast water discharge regulations 

is a question for Congress, not the Administrator of the EPA. If confirmed, I 

will carry out the authorities granted to EPA by Congress. 

23.Approximately 200 miles of the Hudson River are classified by the EPA as one 

of the largest Superfund sites in the country when 1.3 million pounds of PCBs 

were discharged by two General Electric plants into the Hudson River over a 30-

year period. The EPA has required targeted dredging between 2009 and 2015. 

Last year, the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation repeatedly advised the EPA of the State's concerns that EPA's 

remedy for the Hudson River left in place substantial levels of PCB contamination. 

The EPA is slated to release its five-year review of the project this spring. 

Independent and objective quantitative analyses are essential in order to 

determine whether the remedy is protective of human health and the environment. 

Will you agree to work with New York State to evaluate the sufficiency of the 

remedy selected in the EPA's Record of Decision? 

95 
835 

I appreciated hearing about this Superfund site in our meeting and your 

staff followed up with us concerning the consent decree in this situation. If 

confirmed, I intend for EPA to work collaboratively with New York State to 

assess the sufficiency of the remedy. I understand that EPA intends to 

provide data and analysis related to a review of the remedy to the site 

related to all stakeholders, including New York, federal partners, and the 

environmental community. I also understand the State and other 

stakeholders will have the opportunity to present information to EPA 

through that process. I confirmed, I would work to ensure that EPA's 

decision will be informed by such information provided through such 

process. 

24.With regard to the Hudson River, will you thoroughly quantify the trends based 

on all available fish, water, and sediment data and make reasonable and 

conservative assumptions regarding future trends? 

I believe EPA actions should be based on sound science and taken in 

accordance with applicable statutory requirements, including consideration 

such as those you identify. 

25.As of 2014, New York had the third largest number of Superfund sites among 

all states, with 87 sites. One in four Americans lives within three miles of a 

contaminated disposal site that poses serious risks to human health and the 

environment. In recent years, EPA has allocated approximately $250 million per 

year for Superfund cleanup. The agency estimates that much greater amountsfrom $355 million to over $600 million per year- will be needed in the future. 

What changes should be made to the Superfund statute to help facilitate these 

important clean-up projects? 

If confirmed, I would expect to prioritize the cleanup of contaminated land. 

Prior to suggesting any legislative proposals, I would expect to be briefed 

by staff and to receive the views of relevant stakeholders on ways to 

improve the operation of the Superfund program, including any changes to 

its statutory authority, if confirmed. 

26.Do you support restoring the tax on petroleum products that funded the 

Superfund trust fund, but was discontinued in 1995? 

This is a matter for Congress to decide. 

27.What would you do, if confirmed, to facilitate and improve Superfund clean-ups 

in the absence of new legislation? 

If confirmed, I would expect to prioritize the cleanup of contaminated land. I 

would also expect to be briefed by staff and to receive the views of relevant 

96 
836 

stakeholders on ways to improve the operation of the Superfund program, 

absent new statutory authority, if confirmed. I also understand the 

Government Accountability Office and the EPA Inspector General also 

regularly review the operation and activities of the Superfund program, and I 

would expect to look to their recommendations for additional areas for 

improvement, if confirmed. 

28.The EPA's Brownfields Program provides grants and technical assistance to 

assess, clean up, and reuse contaminated properties. Cleaning up and 

reinvesting in brownfields protects human health and the environment, reduces 

blight, and takes development pressures off agricultural and other working lands. 

Through fiscal year 2013, on average, $17.79 was leveraged for each EPA 

Brownfields dollar and 7.3 jobs leveraged per $100,000 of EPA brownfields funds 

expended on assessment, cleanup, and revolving loan fund cooperative 

agreements. Unfortunately, only about 1/3 of all applicants to the program are 

successful. Do you support expanding the resources for the Brownfields Program 

to adequately support these communities in need? 

I am aware EPA's Brownfields program has enjoyed bipartisan support in 

Congress. If confirmed as Administrator, I expect cleanup of contaminated 

land to be among my priorities and to be briefed by staff about the 

Brownfields programs activities and resources before taking any action. 

29.1n 2005, New York State, Connecticut, and the EPA and Army Corps reached 

an agreement to eliminate or reduce the amount of dredged sediment dumped in 

the open waters of Long Island Sound. The New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation and Department of State have repeatedly urged the 

EPA and Army Corps not to move forward with the permanent designation of an 

open water dumping site in Eastern Long Island Sound, raising concerns that the 

sediment has not been properly tested and could negatively impact the economic 

and environmental state of Long Island Sound, which was designated in 1987 by 

Congress as an Estuary Of National Significance. Will you work to enforce NYS's 

right to protect Long Island Sound from additional open water dumping of dredged 

material? 

The designation by EPA of an area as a site for dredged material disposal 

must follow the rigorous process set forth in the Marine Protection, 

Research, and Sanctuaries Act to ensure protection of the environment. As 

I stated in my testimony before the Committee, I support following the 

administrative processes set forth in law, including the National 

Environmental Policy Act, to ensure that EPA's statutory responsibilities are 

fully carried out. 

97 
837 

30.Will you commit to assisting the states with determining upland alternatives to 

the open water disposal of dredged material? 

Disposal of dredged material is not an EPA mission or responsibility. That 

lies with the Corps of Engineers. 

31.Will you continue the Long Island Sound Study office and ensure it receives 

the necessary resources from EPA? 

As I noted in my testimony before the Committee, I support collaborative 

efforts to achieve environmental protection. The Long Island Sound Study 

is a collaborative effort among EPA, New York, and Connecticut. 

EPA's Long Island Sound Study office was authorized by Congress in 1990 

under section 119 of the Clean Water Act. If confirmed, I will carry out all 

responsibilities given to EPA by Congress. 

32.Will you support annual appropriations of at least $10 million for the EPA's 

Long Island Sound geographic program? 

If confirmed, I will seek budgetary resources to carry out all responsibilities 

given to EPA by Congress. I note that the most recent appropriation for the 

Long Island Sound program was about $3.9 million and the most recent 

budget request was about $2.9 million. 

33.How do you intend to handle existing EPA enforcement actions initiated prior 

to January 20, 2017? 

I am unfamiliar with the specific details of the actions referenced in the 

question. I would expect to be briefed by staff, in consultation with the 

Department of Justice as appropriate, before taking any action. 

34.Municipallandfills that are non-compliant with the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) have created public health and environmental problems on 

the island of Puerto Rico, contributing to water, ground and air contamination. 

How will you address non-compliant landfills in Puerto Rico? 

I am not familiar with the details of this specific issues but, if confirmed as 

Administrator, I would expect to be briefed by staff about EPA's ongoing 

involvement and role at these sites. If confirmed, I expect to make cleanup 

of contaminated land one of my priorities. I also believe in the importance of 

hearing the views of all stakeholders and would welcome the opportunity to 

discuss this further. 

98 
838 

35.1 have been working with EPA Region 2 to address the significant environment 

and public health crisis in the Caiio Martin Peiia in San Juan, Puerto Rico. As we 

discussed during our meeting in my office, EPA must take aggressive action to 

work with the Army Corps of Engineers to clean up hazardous waste, which is 

threatening the lives of children and families, who do not have full representation 

in the Congress. Will you continue EPA's aggressive push to clean up the Cafio? 

As discussed, I am not familiar with the details of this specific matter but, if 

confirmed as Administrator, I would expect to be briefed by staff about 

EPA's ongoing involvement and role at this site. If confirmed, I expect to 

make cleanup of contaminated land one of my priorities. 

36.1f confirmed, will you visit San Juan and tour Caiio Martin Pefia during your 

first year as Administrator? 

As we discussed in your office, I would be pleased to accompany you on 

this trip at a mutually convenient time if I am confirmed as Administrator. 

37.What is the scientific basis for sea level rise, which we have experienced along 

the coast of New York State? 

If confirmed as Administrator, I will work to ensure EPA regulatory actions 

are based on the most up to date and objective scientific data, including the 

ever-evolving understanding of the changes in our climate and sea level 

rise. 

38.Do you agree with the National Climate Assessment that human-induced 

climate change has already increased the number and strength of extreme 

weather events? 

I am aware of the broad range of views within the scientific community 

regarding the relationship between human activity on changes in the 

climate and any resulting impact on extreme weather events. If confirmed as 

Administrator, I will work to ensure EPA regulatory actions are based on the 

most up to date and objective scientific data. 

39.Why did you eliminate the environmental protection unit of the Oklahoma 

Attorney General's office? 

My office continues to employ attorneys vested with responsibilities related 

to environmental protection, including the attorney who served as the lead 

attorney on the previous attorney general's "environmental protection unit." 

That attorney's responsibilities remain unchanged (he has been promoted, 

in fact), and he pursues exactly the kind of cases that he pursued under the 

99 
839 

previous attorney general. The only thing that changed was the internal 

organization of those vested with those responsibilities, because I 

concluded (consistent with the practices of every attorney general in the 

State's history but for my immediate predecessor) that it was not 

operationally efficient to have a separate unit for such work. Thus, I chose 

to house that work in the Office's Public Protection Unit and then later in the 

Solicitor General's Unit. 

40.How may staff does the Oklahoma Attorney General's office have dedicated, 

full time, to enforcing federal environmental laws in Oklahoma? Do not include in 

that number staff working on lawsuits against the EPA 

The Office of the Attorney General's employs seven attorneys who 

responsibilities include environmental-related matters, with a primary focus 

on enforcing Oklahoma law, rather than the federal law that your question 

presumes. These duties substantially include representing the 

environmental agencies of the State of Oklahoma or providing counsel to 

those environmental agencies in actions they determine to pursue. 

41.Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) is listed as an unregulated contaminant under 

the Safe Drinking Water Act. PFOA was discovered in the municipal water supply 

and private wells in the Village of Hoosick Falls and Towns of Hoosick and 

Petersburgh, NY and in North Bennington, Pownal, Vermont. Perfluorooctane 

sulfonate (PFOS) was found in Newburgh New York. 

In 2014, PFOA and PFOS were found in public drinking water wells in Horsham, 

Warminster, and Warrington, Pennsylvania. They were found by the federal 

Environmental Protection Agency, as part of the Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Rule. The amounts of PFOA and PFOS found in the public wells in the 

area were among the 10 highest samples anywhere in the country based on the 

provisional health advisory level set by EPA in 2009. 

In 2009, EPA set a provisional health advisory level of .4 parts per billion. In May, 

2016, EPA set a Lifetime Health Advisory level for PFOA at 70 parts per trillion. 

How will you work to ensure that drinking water sources are monitored for PFOA 

and PFOS, particularly in small communities under 10,000 people? 

If confirmed, I will carry out the authorities and responsibilities given to EPA 

by Congress. Congress did not make monitoring eligible for Safe Drinking 

Water Act State Revolving Loan Fund assistance because it is considered 

operation and maintenance that is local responsibility. However, Congress 

recently authorized a grant program to assist small and disadvantaged 

communities provide safe drinking water. Testing of unregulated 

100 
840 

contaminants is eligible for assistance under this authority. If funding is 

provided by Congress, I will carry out that program. 

42.How will EPA continue to evaluate the health effects of PFOA on all 

communities that were exposed, in particular vulnerable populations including 

infants and fetuses during pregnancy? 

As I stated at my confirmation hearing, PFOA is a chemical substance that 

the Agency should address quickly and I will look to continue evaluating the 

health effects of PFOA through TSCA and the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

43.Will you work collaboratively with other agencies, including the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the 

Department of Defense, to ensure that the public is informed about the health 

effects of contamination? 

As I stated at my confirmation hearing I believe collaboration between 

federal agencies to protect and better inform the public. 

44.Will you work collaboratively with states and local governments to ensure that 

information on PFOA and PFOS are communicated in a transparent and timely 

manner to the public? 

Cooperative federalism and collaboration between EPA and officials at the 

state and local level is something I feel very strongly about and if I am 

confirmed I will work collaboratively with state and local governments. 

45.1n the absence of federal drinking water standards, what role should EPA play 

in assisting communities whose drinking water supplies have become 

contaminated by PFCs or other emerging contaminants? 

Congress recently authorized a grant program to assist small and 

disadvantaged communities provide safe drinking water. Testing of 

unregulated contaminants is eligible for assistance under this authority. If 

confirmed and if funding is provided by Congress, I will carry out that 

program. 

46.The latest EPA survey of capital improvement needs indicates that public 

water systems need to invest $384.2 billion on infrastructure improvements over 

20 years to ensure the provision of safe tap water. The needs estimate generally 

excludes costs associated with addressing unregulated contaminants or the costs 

of replacing lead service lines. What funding level do you view as effective for the 

101 
841 

EPA Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (OWSRF) capitalization grant 

program? 

The federal government offers some financial assistance but the vast 

majority of the Investments in public water systems will be made by the 

public and private entities that own and operate those systems. The Safe 

Drinking Water Act State Revolving Loan Funds leverage federal investment 

at about 1. 76 to 1. That is, a federal dollar leverages about 1. 76 dollars in 

loan assistance. The new WIFIA program can leverage federal investment at 

a level of up to 60 to 1. I fully support the Drinking Water SRF and would 

not support any cuts to that program. However, if Congress provides 

additional funds I am excited by the opportunities the new WIFIA program 

presents. 

47. How would you use the "precautionary principle" to bring to bear cutting edge 

science on emerging contaminants to ensure decisions are technically valid, while 

also not delaying regulatory decisions to wait for every potential detail to be 

addressed when health impacts may be occurring during the delay? 

If confirmed agency decisions will be based on sound science and I will 

work to protect health and the environment as expeditiously as possible. 

48.What is your view on EPA's role in overseeing response actions undertaken by 

DOD at U.S. military facilities, including where PFOA, PFOS, or other PFCs may 

have been released? 

EPA's role is governed by the statutory and regulatory authorities, including 

section 120 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation 

and Liability Act and the National Contingency Plan. 

49. As you know, Congress passed a provision in law that exempts hydraulic 

fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act. Do you think that hydraulic 

fracturing chemicals should be exempt or do you believe that this law has merit? 

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution vests in Congress the authority to 

make our nation's laws and, if confirmed, as a member of the Executive 

Branch I will faithfully execute my duty to implement and enforce the laws 

written by Congress. 

50. How will you address the disproportionate effect of environmental 

contamination on low-income communities of color? 

102 
842 

If confirmed, I will expect to be briefed by staff about EPA's programs and 

statutory authorities in this area. 

103 
843 

Senator Markey: 

1. There is tremendous diversity across states in this country, and occasionally 

states have differences of opinion on how to approach a problem. One of the roles 

of the federal government is to be an arbiter among states. 

• What is your philosophy on how interstate pollution conflicts should be handled? 

• Should a state be able to pollute a river for which another state relies on for 

drinking water? 

• What is the EPA's role in resolving interstate pollution conflicts? 

• How would you determine when EPA should be involved in interstate pollution 

disputes? 

As I testified in the hearing, I have pursued opportunities to address 

interstate environmental quality matters. One of the examples I have 

highlighted is the work that Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel and 

I took to address an enforceable water quality standard between Arkansas 

and Oklahoma. I have also discussed how Texas should be responsible 

when air quality issues affect Oklahoma and my experience with that. When 

negotiations among and between states breakdown EPA has a role to set 

environmental standards. However, that is should be a last course of action 

instead of the first. I believe environmental statutes are designed with states 

as a primary implementer. Environmental statutes envision that states have 

the delegated enforcement and primacy to implement and enforce 

environmental statutes. Only when that is not happening or when 

negotiations between and among states breakdown should EPA determine a 

dispute and only after attempting to assist states negotiate a local solution. 

I am fond of saying that we need national standards and neighborhood 

solutions. I think that should shape the work of the EPA. 

2. During the hearing, you repeatedly underscored the need to make regulation 

"regular" for regulated entities. 

• How do you reconcile that goal with the mission of EPA, which is "to protect 

human health and the environment"? 

• If confirmed as EPA Administrator will your highest priorities be to protect human 

health and the environment? 

As I testified, I believe in the rule of law and that process matters. I do not 

view these as being contrary to EPA's mission to protect human health and 

the environment. 

104 
844 

3. Please list any deductible or nondeductible charitable donations you made in 

the last three years, including, for each contribution, the name of the recipient and 

the amount. 

I have complied with the reporting obligations from the Office of 

Government Ethics and the EPW Committee. 

4. As attorney general, you made Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, 

and expected a fast response. Do you commit to respond to FOIAs as quickly as 

possible, if you are confirmed? 

If confirmed, I will commit to tasking my staff with responding to FOIA 

requests in a timely manner. 

5. During Mr. Trump's campaign, there were reports that even volunteers were 

required to sign non-disclosure agreements. After his election, President-elect 

Trump's team demanded lists of career officials who worked on climate science 

issues at the Energy Department and women's and gender issues at the State 

Department. It is against the law to retaliate against career officials for following 

lawful policy directives. It is also against the law to interfere with career 

employees communicating with Congress. I have included a summary of these 

laws below. 

Any suggestion that the incoming administration is targeting career officials for 

retaliation simply because they worked on policies that the new President 

disagrees with threatens to create a chilling effect on employees who are simply 

trying to do their jobs. 

5 U.S.C. § 7211, provides that: The right of employees, individually or collectively, 

to petition Congress or a Member of Congress. or to furnish information to either 

House of Congress, or to a committee or Member thereof, may not be interfered 

with or denied. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8), it is a violation of federal law to 

retaliate against whistleblowers. That law states: Any employee who has 

authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel 

action, shall not, with respect to such authority ... take or fail to take, or threaten to 

take or fail to take, a personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant 

for employment because of .... (A) any disclosure of information by an employee 

or applicant which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences- (i) a 

violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or (ii) gross mismanagement, a gross 

waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to 

public health or safety, any disclosure to the Special Counsel, or to the Inspector 

General of an agency or another employee designated by the head of the agency 

to receive such disclosures, of information which the employee or applicant 

reasonably believes evidences a violation of any law, rule, or regulation ... " In 

addition, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1505, it is against federal law to interfere with a 

105 
845 

Congressional inquiry: Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any 

threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or 

endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of 

the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department 

or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of 

inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or 

any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress. 

• If you are confirmed, will you commit to protect the rights of all career employees 

of the EPA, including their right to speak with Congress? 

• Will you commit to communicate employees' whistleblower rights via email to all 

EPA employees within a week of being sworn in? 

If confirmed, I commit to protecting the rights of all EPA employees and will 

follow the law. 

6. The President-elect appears to be planning to ignore the advice he was given 

by bipartisan ethics experts to divest himself from his business interests. In the 

United States, he has hundreds of business interests, which include everything 

from vineyards, golf courses, hotels and casinos. Some of these interests could 

be impacted by EPA regulations or enforcement actions- for example, Donald 

Trump's New Jersey casino flunked air pollution tests, his hotel in Chicago has 

had a Clean Water Act violation and his New Jersey Golf Club violated the Safe 

Drinking Water Act. 

• Do you commit to ensure that no employee of the EPA is pressured to take -or 

not take - any regulatory or enforcement action or decision because that action or 

decision would adversely affect business interests associated with the presidentelect or his family? 

• Considering that the president-elect has stated he will not release his tax returns 

anytime soon, how will you know exactly what all of the Trump family interests are 

without his tax returns? 

If confirmed as Administrator, I will take care that all environmental laws 

enacted by Congress are faithfully executed without regard to identity of the 

owners of any regulated business that might be affected by such execution 

of the laws. 

7. The following series of questions relate to Title 74 Section 20i of the Oklahoma 

Statutes. As Attorney General of Oklahoma, you were responsible for complying 

with this law. For your ease of reference, Section 20i is provided below: 

74 Okl. St.§ 20i (2016) 

§ 20i. Legal Representation of Agency or Official of Executive 

Branch--Contracts 

106 
846 

A. An agency or official of the executive branch may obtain legal 

representation by one or more attorneys by means of one of the following: 

1. Employing an attorney as such if otherwise authorized by law; 

2. Contracting with the Office of the Attorney General; or 

3. If the Attorney General is unable to represent the agency, or 

official due to a conflict of interest, or the Office of the Attorney General is 

unable or lacks the personnel or expertise to provide the specific 

representation required by such agency or official, contracting with a 

private attorney or attorneys pursuant to this section. 

B. When entering into a contract for legal representation by one or more 

private attorneys, an agency or official of the executive branch shall select 

an attorney or attorneys from a list of attorneys maintained by the Attorney 

General. An agency may contract for legal representation with one or more 

attorneys who are not on the list only when there is no attorney on the list 

capable of providing the specific representation and only with the approval 

of the Attorney General. The list shall include any attorney who desires to 

furnish services to an agency or official of the executive branch and who 

has filed a schedule of fees for services with and on a form approved by 

the Attorney General. An agency or official may agree to deviate from the 

schedule of fees only with the approval of the Attorney General. 

C. Before entering into a contract for legal representation by one or 

more private attorneys, an agency or official of the executive branch shall 

furnish a copy of the proposed contract to the Attorney General and, if not 

fully described in the contract, notify the Attorney General of the following: 

1. The nature and scope of the representation including, but not 

limited to, a description of any pending or anticipated litigation or of the 

transaction requiring representation; 

2. The reason or reasons for not obtaining the representation from 

an attorney employed by the agency or official, if an attorney is employed 

by the agency or official; 

3. The reason or reasons for not obtaining the representation from 

the Attorney General by contract; 

4. The anticipated cost of the representation including the following: 

a. the basis for or method of calculation of the fee including, when 

applicable, the hourly rate for each attorney, paralegal, legal assistant, or 

other person who will perform services under the contract, and 

b. the basis for and method of calculation of any expenses which 

will be reimbursed by the agency or official under the contract; and 

5. An estimate of the anticipated duration of the contract. 

!07 
847 

D. Before entering into a contract for legal representation by one or 

more private attorneys where the agency has reason to believe that the 

case, transaction or matter will equal or exceed Twenty Thousand Dollars 

($ 20,000.00) or after employment when it becomes apparent that the 

case, transaction or matter will equal or exceeds Twenty Thousand Dollars 

($ 20,000.00), an agency or official of the executive branch shall obtain the 

approval of the Attorney General when the total cost, including fees and 

expenses, of all contracts relating to the same case, transaction, or matter 

will equal or exceed Twenty Thousand Dollars ($ 20,000.00). Any 

amendment, modification, or extension of a contract which, had it been a 

part of the original contract would have required approval by the Attorney 

General, shall also require approval by the Attorney General. 

E. When an agency or official of the executive branch enters into a 

contract for professional legal services pursuant to this section, the agency 

shall also comply with the applicable provisions of Section 85.41 of Title 74 

of the Oklahoma Statutes. 

F. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the Oklahoma 

Indigent Defense System created pursuant to Section 1355 et seq. of Title 

22 of the Oklahoma Statutes. 

G. The Attorney General shall, on or before February 1 of each year, 

make a written report on legal representation obtained pursuant to 

paragraphs 2 and 3 of subsection A of this section. The report shall include 

a brief description of each contract, the circumstances necessitating each 

contract, and the amount paid or to be paid under each contract. The report 

shall be filed with the Governor, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, 

the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chair of the 

Appropriations and Budget Committee of the House of Representatives, 

and the Chair of the Appropriations Committee of the Senate. 

•The Oklahoma Governor considers the Office of Attorney General a state 

agency, and includes the Attorney General on a comprehensive list of Oklahoma 

state agencies available at https://www.ok.gov/portal/agency.php. Do you agree 

that the Office of Attorney General is an agency under Oklahoma state law? If not, 

please explain. 

Generally speaking, the Office of Attorney General is a state agency. 

Whether it is an "agency" for purposes of any particular statute requires an 

analysis of that statute. 

•Subsection G of Title 7 4 Section 20i of the Oklahoma Statutes requires the 

Attorney General to report annually on any contracts for legal representation that 

state agencies have entered into with private attorneys over the course of the 

prior year. For the avoidance of doubt, no exception is provided under Section 20i 

for contracts for legal representation entered into by the Attorney General with 

private attorneys. Do you agree that Subsection G of Title 7 4 Section 20i required 

108 
848 

you, as Attorney General, to report contracts for legal representation that you 

entered into with private attorneys over the course of the prior year? If not, please 

explain. 

No. The purpose of Section 20i, as demonstrated by its text, is to place the 

Office of Attorney General in the role of approving contracts for outside 

counsel that other agencies wish to enter into rather than utilizing the 

services of the Office of Attorney General. Subsection G requires a report 

be made of contracts entered into "pursuant to this section," as Subsection 

A(3) makes clear. Because the Office of Attorney General is not required to 

seek permission from itself "pursuant to" that section of law, it has no 

applicable contracts to report pursuant to Subsection G. The Office of 

Attorney General has, however, routinely disclosed contracts it has entered 

into with outside counsel, when requests for such contracts are made. 

•The last fiscal year in which payments from the Office of Attorney General to 

private attorneys were recorded in the report submitted pursuant to Subsection G 

of Title 74 Section 20i of the Oklahoma Statutes was FY 2011. No payments from 

the Office of Attorney General to private attorneys were recorded in the reports 

you filed for FY 2012, FY 2013, FY 2014, or FY 2015. As Oklahoma Attorney 

General, did you enter into any verbal or written contracts with private attorneys 

for legal representation (whether or not such contracts provided compensation to 

private attorneys) other than those listed in the reports you submitted for fiscal 

years 2011 through 2015? Please provide a brief description of each such 

contract you entered into, the date you entered into the contract, the 

circumstances necessitating the contract, and the amount-if any-paid under the 

contract (including details of any non-monetary benefits that you may have 

obtained, offered, been offered, or delivered in connection with the contract). 

Yes. Such information can be requested from the Office of Attorney General 

through a request made pursuant to Oklahoma's Open Records Act. 

•Subsection 8 of Title 74 Section 20i of the Oklahoma Statutes requires thatwhen entering into a contract for legal representation by one or more private 

attorneys-an agency or official of the executive branch must select an attorney 

or attorneys from a list maintained by the Attorney General. If there are no listed 

attorneys capable of providing the specific representation, then the agency must 

obtain the approval of the Attorney General in order to enter into the contract. 

oPiease describe your process, as Attorney General, for evaluating a request 

submitted by a state agency to enter into a contract for legal representation by a 

private attorney not on the approved list. Please provide any documents detailing 

this process (which you or your staff relied on in making such evaluations) or 

indicate if this process was undocumented. 

109 
849 

oPiease provide any documents submitted to you by state agencies requesting 

approval to enter into a contract for legal representation by a private attorney not 

on the approved list, as well as your written responses to such requests. 

oPiease provide any papers documenting decisions made by you or the Office of 

Attorney General to enter into contracts for legal representation by private 

attorneys that did not originate with requests submitted to you by state agencies. 

oDo you agree that Subsection 8 of Title 74 Section 20i required you, as Attorney 

General, to enter into contracts for legal representation only with private attorneys 

included on the list referred to in that subsection unless there were no listed 

attorneys capable of providing the specific representation? If not, please explain. 

Such information can be requested from the Office of Attorney General 

through a request made pursuant to Oklahoma's Open Records Act. With 

regard to your question, because the Office of Attorney General maintains 

the referenced list, and is authorized to allow representation from attorneys 

not on the list, the Office of Attorney General plainly has the discretion to 

allow representation from attorneys not on the list. 

Did you-at any time during your term as Attorney General-enter into a written 

or verbal contract for legal representation (whether compensated or pro bono) by 

one or more private attorneys not included on the list referenced in Subsection 8 

of Title 74 Section 20i of the Oklahoma Statutes? If so, for each such contract: 

oPiease provide a brief description of the contract, the circumstances 

necessitating the contract, and the amount-if any-paid under the contract 

(including details on any non-monetary benefits that you may have obtained, 

offered, been offered, or delivered in connection with the contract). 

oPiease indicate if you entered into the contract with a private attorney not on the 

approved list because there were no attorneys on the approved list capable of 

providing the specific representation or for another reason. Please describe the 

process you followed in reaching a decision to enter into a contract with a private 

attorney not on the approved list. Please list the attorneys on the approved list 

that you considered hiring (and deemed incapable of providing the specific 

representation) before deciding to enter into a contract with a private attorney not 

on the approved list. For each attorney on the approved list that you considered 

and rejected, please describe the deficiencies in their capabilities that led you to 

reject them in favor of a private attorney not on the approved list. 

Such information can be requested from the Office of Attorney General 

through a request made pursuant to Oklahoma's Open Records Act. 

110 
850 

•As of January 18, 2017, neither David Rivkin, Jr. (nor any other attorney 

employed by Baker Hostetler) appeared on the "Approved Attorney List I 20i" 

accessible on your website at 

https ://www.oag.ok.gov/litigation/1917 atty. nsf/wfindatty. htmi?OpenView. 

oDid David Rivkin Jr. represent the State of Oklahoma in its Clean Power Plan 

case against EPA? 

o To the best of your knowledge, did David Rivkin Jr. or Baker Hostetler receive 

any compensation or funds from any third party in conjunction with this or any 

other litigation in which it represented the State of Oklahoma on your behalf? If so, 

please provide the names of any such third parties. 

oDid you enter into a written or verbal contract for legal representation (whether 

compensated or pro bono) with David Rivkin, Jr. of the Washington, D. C.-based 

law firm Baker Hostetler? If so, please provide: 

•a brief description of the contract; 

•the date you entered into the contract; 

•the circumstances necessitating the contract; 

•the deficiencies in the capabilities of attorneys on your approved list that led you 

to reject them in favor of David Rivkin Jr.-an attorney not on your approved list; 

and 

•the amount-if any-paid under the contract (including details on any nonmonetary benefits that you may have obtained, offered, been offered, or delivered 

in connection with the contract). 

oPiease list any contributions made by David Rivkin Jr. or any employee of Baker 

Hostetler to you, your campaign, or any organizations or entities for which you 

engaged in fund raising, along with the dates of such contributions. 

Yes. No. Yes. Information relating to the contract can be requested from the 

Office of Attorney General through a request made pursuant to Oklahoma's 

Open Records Act. A full list of contributors to my campaigns for the state 

senate and attorney general may be found at the Oklahoma Ethics 

Commission's websites. For state campaign committees from 2002-2014, 

please use this site: https://www.ok.gov/ethics/public/candidate.php. For 

2015 to the present, the Commission uses this site: 

http://guardian.ok.gov/PublicSite/SearchPages/Search.aspx?SearchTypeCo 

deHook=1F26BA5E-71EA-48E4-8050-C1013E9FEOA7. Attached is a letter 

from the Oklahoma Ethics Commission regarding materials prior to 2002. 

•During your term as Attorney General, did you ever enter into an arrangement 

whereby a private attorney or attorneys represented the State of Oklahoma on 

your behalf on a pro bono basis while being compensated by a third party? If so, 

please list the legal matters in which you entered into such arrangements, and, for 

each matter, the third party or parties that compensated the private attorneys, the 

amounts paid, and any monetary or non-monetary benefits that you may have 

Ill 
851 

obtained in connection with the arrangement. During your term as Attorney 

General, did you have a process in place for ensuring that any private attorneys 

that represented the State of Oklahoma on a pro bono basis did not receive 

compensation from a third party for the legal services they provided to the state? 

If so, please describe this process. 

No. Our Office would not enter into any such agreement for representation if 

it believed that the attorney was not truly working pro bono, and the Office 

would seek assurances from the attorney that they were. 

B. The Online Lenders Alliance is "a trade group for online payday and short-term 

lenders and the companies that steer customers to them," according to a recent 

Los Angeles Times article describing actions by the Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau to protect consumers from misleading advertising claims made 

by certain members of the payday lending industry. 

•Have you, your campaign, or any organizations or entities for which you engaged 

in fund raising ever received or solicited donations from the Online Lenders 

Alliance or any other trade, industry, advocacy, or other group representing 

companies making payday, title, installment, or short-term loans to consumers? If 

so, please list the amounts and dates of such donations or solicitations. 

I am not aware of any such solicitations or donations. 

•Have you, your campaign, or any organizations or entities for which you engaged 

in fund raising ever received or solicited donations from any company making 

payday, title, installment, or short-term loans to consumers? If so, please list the 

amounts and dates of such donations or solicitations. 

I am not aware of any such solicitations or donations. 

•Have you, your campaign, or any organizations or entities for which you engaged 

in fund raising ever received or solicited donations from any principal, senior 

executive, officer, or director of a company making payday, title, installment, or 

short-term loans? If so, please list the amounts and dates of such donations or 

solicitations. 

I am not aware of any such solicitations or donations. 

•Have you, your campaign, or any organizations or entities for which you engaged 

in fund raising ever received or solicited donations from any member of the Board 

of Directors of the Online Lenders Alliance? For your convenience, the members 

112 
852 

of the Board of Directors of the Online Lenders Alliance, along with their business 

affiliations, are listed below. For each of these individuals, please provide the 

amounts and dates of their donations, or, if you unsuccessfully solicited donations 

from them, the dates of such solicitations. 

oKim Anderson, Strategic Link Consulting 

oSamantha Bentson, Cashland Online 

oKirk Chartier, Enova Financial 

oDoug Clark, Axcess Financial 

oMark Curry, MacFarlane Group 

oJohn Dalton, LeadFiash 

oSteve Hotz, The Lead Group 

oCiive Kinross, MoneyKey 

oGienn McKay, Selling Source, LLC. 

oBart Miller, Centrinex 

oGreg Rabie, FactorTrust, INC. 

oKen Rees, Elevate 

oWalt Wojciechowski, MicroBilt 

I am not aware of any such solicitations or donations. 

•On June 16, 2015, you, as Attorney General, sent a letter to Richard Cordray, 

Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (hereinafter, "CFPB"), 

expressing concerns about certain rules the CFPB proposed to regulate payday, 

vehicle title, and installment lending. 

oWas the text of this letter partially or substantially drafted by the Online Lenders 

Alliance or any other trade, industry, advocacy, or other group representing 

companies making payday, title, installment, or short-term loans to consumers? 

oDid the Online Lenders Alliance or any other trade, industry, advocacy, or other 

group representing companies making payday, title, installment, or short-term 

loans to consumers participate in the drafting of this letter in any other way? If so, 

please explain. 

oDid you ask the Online Lenders Alliance or any other trade, industry, advocacy, 

or other group representing companies making payday, title, installment, or shortterm loans to consumers review or provide comments on a draft of this letter 

before it was sent? If so, please provide any records related to your outreach. 

oDid the Online Lenders Alliance or any other trade, industry, advocacy, or other 

group representing companies making payday, title, installment, or short-term 

113 
853 

loans to consumers review or provide comments on a draft of this letter before it 

was sent? If so, please provide any communications between you or your office 

and any such group regarding this letter. 

As far as I am aware, no as to all. 

9.The Consumer Federation of America is an association of non-profit consumer 

organizations devoted to advancing the consumer interest through research, 

advocacy, and education. 

•Did you ask the Consumer Federation of America or any other interest or 

advocacy group representing Oklahoma's consumers review or provide 

comments on a draft of this letter before it was sent? If so, please provide any 

records related to your outreach. 

•Did the Consumer Federation of America or any other interest or advocacy group 

representing Oklahoma's consumers review or provide comments on a draft of 

this letter before it was sent? If so, please provide any communications between 

you or your office and any such group regarding this letter. 

As far as I am aware, no as to all. 

1 O.As you may know, Oklahoma has one of the highest usage rates for payday 

loans in the country and allows payday lenders to charge consumers interest 

rates of up to 390 percent on annual basis for a 14-day term loan. In November 

2016, the CFPB reported that consumers in Oklahoma submitted debt collection 

complaints at a rate of 36 percent (higher than the 27 percent national average). 

In addition, the CFPB found that average monthly complaints from Oklahomans 

increased 17 percent from August through October 2015 (higher than the national 

rate of 13 percent). 

•Have you, your campaign, or any organizations or entities for which you engaged 

in fundraising ever received or solicited donations from the Consumer Federation 

of America or any other interest or advocacy group representing Oklahoma's 

consumers? If so, please list the amounts and dates of such donations or 

solicitations. 

•Have you, your campaign, or any organizations or entities for which you engaged 

in fund raising ever received or solicited donations from any member of the Board 

of Directors of the Consumer Federation of America? If so, please provide the 

amounts and dates of their donations, or, if you unsuccessfully solicited donations 

from them, the dates of such solicitations. 

I am not aware of any such solicitations or donations. 

114 
854 

11. You have pursued at least twenty legal actions against the EPA on clean 

water, clean air and climate change related regulations, including multiple lawsuits 

that are ongoing. You have additionally criticized the EPA and its scientists on a 

range of scientific facts and regulations that aim to protect public health. 

• Please identify EPA regulations or standards that you do support in their current 

form. 

• In many of your legal actions and activities as Oklahoma AG, you have 

endorsed positions or signed letters that were drafted by oil and gas industry paid 

lobbyists. Please identify areas in which your views differ significantly from those 

of the oil and gas industry? 

When negotiations among and between states breakdown EPA has a role to 

set environmental standards. However, that should be a last course of 

action instead of the first. I believe environmental statutes are designed 

with states as a primary implementer. Environmental statutes envision that 

states have the delegated enforcement and primacy to implement and 

enforce environmental statutes. Only when that is not happening or when 

negotiations between and among states breakdown should EPA determine a 

dispute and only after attempting to assist states negotiate a local solution. 

I am fond of saying that we need national standards and neighborhood 

solutions. I think that should shape the work of the EPA. As I also testified 

at the hearing, when it was appropriate to pursue legal actions or settlement 

negotiations specifically with the oil and natural gas industry I have done 

so. When considering new regulations on oil and natural gas production 

and practices, I have joined other co-regulators in Oklahoma advocating 

those changes. 

12.Your Ethics Agreement states that for a one-year period, you "will seek 

authorization to participate personally and substantially in particular matters 

involving specific parties in which I know the State of Oklahoma is a party or 

represents a party." 

•Why does this language assume that you "will" seek authorizations for all such 

instances? 

•Why is your recusallimited to a one-year period, when in some cases the 

"particular matters" will not be resolved within that timeframe? 

•Will you commit to recusing yourself from participating in all such particular 

matters, without requesting or receiving a waiver, until the matter is fully resolved? 

If not, why not? 

•These 'particular matters' are all litigation in which your Ethics Agreement 

contemplates you switching from plaintiff in your capacity as Attorney General of 

Oklahoma (in which you were a principal decision-maker on the part of those 

litigating against EPA), to defendant as EPA Administrator (in which you would be 

the principal decision-maker on the response to the lawsuit you filed). Why do 

115 
855 

you not believe this creates an unresolvable conflict of interests that makes it 

impossible for you to properly, lawfully and ethically represent the interests of the 

EPA, while simultaneously upholding your professional duty to your former client, 

the State of Oklahoma? 

My Ethics Agreement was drafted in close consultation with ethics experts 

at the Office of Government Ethics and EPA ethics officials, and reflects a 

diligent effort to ensure that I seek authorization before participating in any 

matter involving specific parties in which I know the State of Oklahoma is a 

party or represents a party for one year after my resignation as Oklahoma 

Attorney General. I believe you may be misreading the language in my 

Ethics Agreement regarding prior authorization. If, during the relevant time 

period, I would like to consider participating in a particular matter involving 

specific parties in which I know the State of Oklahoma is a party or 

represents a party, I will seek advance authorization to do so. With respect 

to my professional obligations as a member of the bar, I am not permitted to 

"switch sides" as counsel in any matter in which I participated as a lawyer. 

The standards that would apply to me as EPA Administrator are different, 

however, as I will not be representing the EPA as a lawyer if I am confirmed. 

13. During the hearing, you refused to unequivocally recuse yourself from 

litigation that you brought against the EPA, repeatedly stating that you would 

follow the direction of agency ethics officials' guidance in this area on a case-bycase basis. Isn't it true that if you are confirmed, the agency ethics officials that 

you are referring to will report to you, and this reporting relationship could be 

perceived to have the potential to influence the guidance they provide you with? In 

light of this, will you commit to the modification of your Ethics Agreement, using 

your own discretion and authority to do so and prior to any vote on your 

confirmation, in order to provide more clarity about your intentions for recusal 

related to each matter involving specific parties in which the State of Oklahoma is 

a party? If not, why not? 

My Ethics Agreement was drafted in close consultation with ethics experts 

at the Office of Government Ethics and EPA ethics officials, and reflects a 

diligent effort to ensure I comply with all applicable federal ethics rules. I 

will abide by the commitment I made in that letter. I am confident in the 

former staff of the EPA and have no reason to believe they will give me 

anything other than their best advice on ethics matters. Moreover, not all 

officials who may consider a request for authorization to participate in a 

matter will necessarily report to me. Before participating in matters 

involving specific parties in which I am concerned where there may be a 

question regarding my impartiality, I would expect, where they deem it 

appropriate, that EPA ethics officials may consult with ethics experts at 

OGE before making a recommendation. 

116 
856 

14.1 am attaching a January 17, 20171etterfrom Citizens for Responsibility and 

Ethics in Washington (CREW) and a January 18, 2017 letter from The Campaign 

Legal Center (CLC), both sent to the EPA Designated Agency Ethics Official, for 

the record and for your review. The CREW letter references several factors 

related to your refusal to unequivocally recuse yourself from participating in any of 

these matters as EPA Administrator that would cause a reasonable person with 

knowledge of the relevant facts "to question his [your] impartiality in these 

matters" and "to question the integrity of the agency's programs and operations." 

The CLC letter states that "the plan described in his (your] ethics agreement is 

insufficient to avoid actual or apparent conflicts of interest, and would cause 

members of the public to question his impartiality in the conduct of his (your] 

duties, contrary to his [your] obligation to "ensure that every citizen can have 

complete confidence in the integrity of the Federal Government."" 

• The CREW letter states that ethics regulations demand your recusal from 

participating personally and substantially as Administrator in particular matters 

involving specific parties in which the State of Oklahoma is a party, even if the 

State of Oklahoma withdraws from the matter. Do you agree to make such a 

recusal for each such matter, even if the State of Oklahoma withdraws from the 

matter? If not, why not? 

• The CREW letter states that "there would be serious and apparent conflicts 

leading to reasonable doubts about Mr. Pruitt's impartiality if he were to participate 

in these lawsuits as EPA Administrator at any point in their lifetime. It is therefore 

essential that Mr. Pruitt's recusals last through the full course of each matter." Do 

you agree to recuse yourself for the full course of each matter involving specific 

parties in which the State of Oklahoma is a party? If not, why not? 

• The CREW letter states that any waiver request you might make from recusal 

from any of these matters "should be denied based on consideration of the 

relevant factors listed under" 5 C.F.R. 2635.502(d). Do you agree not to request a 

waiver from recusal from any such matter? If not, why don't you agree with the 

analysis of the factors listed in the regulations as they apply to your past litigation 

history against the Agency that CREW described in the letter should result in a 

denial of the waiver request? 

As discussed above, my Ethics Agreement was drafted in close 

consultation with ethics experts at the Office of Government Ethics and EPA 

ethics officials, and reflects a diligent effort to ensure I comply with all 

applicable federal ethics rules. If confirmed, I will ask relevant federal ethics 

officials to fully review the issues raised in the CREW letter and, if 

appropriate, take them into account in determining the proper legal course 

of action in particular instances. 

I 17 
857 

15.Some of the legal cases that you brought against the agency remain open, and 

there may be legal decisions that require EPA regulatory action as they are 

resolved; for example, a court could uphold the EPA regulation and require it to 

be enforced, or a court could direct such a regulation's revision. Since such 

regulatory actions would be a direct consequence of the litigation, any conflict of 

interests associated with your participating in the legal matter should extend to 

any EPA regulatory or enforcement action taken as a result of court action on the 

litigation. Do you agree to recuse yourself without waiver and for the entirety of 

your tenure at the EPA from all such regulatory or enforcement actions that are 

taken as a result of court action on a specific legal matter from which you were 

recused? If not, why not? 

As EPA Administrator I will recuse from participation in litigation in matters 

in which I represented the State of Oklahoma, unless I receive informed 

consent from the State of Oklahoma and the permission of relevant federal 

ethics officials. It is my understanding that recusal obligations do not 

extend to regulatory rulemaking of general applicability, which does not 

create a conflict under applicable rules. 

16.1f you are confirmed, you will also have the ability to accomplish through 

regulation as EPA Administrator what you have been seeking to accomplish 

through litigation as Attorney General. For example, instead of waiting for a court 

to decide whether to grant your lawsuit's request to overturn EPA's smog 

standard, you could start to write a regulation to do just that on your very first day 

on the job. Will you commit to recuse yourself from working on the revision or 

elimination of any regulation regarding issues on which you have sued the EPA? 

If not, why not? 

It is my understanding under federal ethics rules that regulatory rulemaking 

of general applicability does not create a conflict. 

17. I am also attaching, for the record and for your review, the Ethics Agreement 

signed by Carol Browner, former EPA Administrator during the Clinton 

Administration. In her Ethics Agreement, she agreed to recuse herself from 

participating "personally and substantially in any EPA matter which involves the 

State of Florida as a specific party and in which I was personally and substantially 

involved as Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulations, State of 

Florida". I note that this agreement was not limited to one year in duration and not 

subject to waivers. I am also attaching, for the record and for your review, the 

Obama Administration Ethics Pledge that each nominee agreed to uphold, which 

states, in part, "I will not for a period of 2 years from the date of my appointment 

participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and 

substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations 

and contracts." If the response to any part of questions 2, 3 or 4 is no, please 

118 
858 

also explain why in light of the stronger Ethics Agreements and pledges made by 

past EPA Administrators? 

I am not familiar with the facts and circumstances surrounding Ms. 

Browner's Ethics Agreement. In my Ethics Agreement, which was drafted in 

close consultation with ethics experts at the Office of Government Ethics 

and EPA ethics officials, I agreed to abide by federal regulations that require 

my recusal from particular matters involving specific parties in which the 

State of Oklahoma is a party for a period of one year after my resignation as 

Attorney General, unless I receive a waiver. I will abide by the commitment 

in that letter, in addition to any other obligations imposed by the Trump 

Administration as well as my obligations as a member of the bar. 

18. In addition to your participation in specific litigation and regulatory matters that 

raise conflicts of interests, there may be pending enforcement matters at EPA in 

which donors to you or your political action committees are the subjects. For 

example, records indicate that Tyson Foods has been the subject of an EPA 

Clean Air Act enforcement action3 and reportedly "faces an ongoing criminal 

investigation by the EPA for its release of toxic pollutants into waterways". 4 Do 

you commit to recusing yourself from participation in any enforcement matter in 

which the subject is an entity that has previously made a donation to you or any of 

your political action committees? If not, why not? 

I will consult with relevant federal ethics officials to determine whether to 

participate in a particular matter. 

19. Miss. Comm'n on Envtl. Quality v. EPA, 790 F.3d 138 (D.C. Cir. 2015) stated 

that "Decisionmakers violate the Due Process Clause and must be disqualified ... 

when they act with an 'unalterably closed mind."' One of your filings stated that 

the agency's record "does not support EPA's findings that mercury, non-mercury 

HAP metals, and acid gas HAPs pose public health hazards." Do you have an 

"unalterably closed mind" on the question of whether mercury and acid gas HAPs 

pose public health hazards? If not, please explain your current view on this 

question. 

As I stated in my testimony to the committee, all legal positions that I took 

in my capacity as Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma were in my 

capacity as an advocate. If confirmed as Administrator, I will consider all 

3 https: //www.epa.gov /enforcement/tyson-foods-inc 4 http: //www.meatpoultry.com /articles /news home/l:lusiness/2016/08/Tyson inwstors c 

all for envir.aspx?l Ll='ih 71:lr!E281:lCD7 -0,15D-489C-8A41-18A6DDD l:lE99F% 7D&cck-1 

119 
859 

matters presented to me with an open mind and will work to reach 

conclusions that are reflected in the administrative record of each matter 

and that comport with Congress's intent in enacting the Act. 

20. Section 301 (a) of the Clean Air Act prohibits the Administrator from delegating 

authority over many regulatory proceedings. To the extent that you are recused 

from participating in such decisions, who could lawfully make them? 

If I am recused from participating in a matter, the Federal Vacancies Reform 

Act and other federal law provide a mechanism for another EPA official to 

perform such functions in an acting capacity. Under current policy, the EPA 

Deputy Administrator would typically serve this function. 

21.Each case in which you litigated on behalf of your former client requested that 

the court compel EPA to take a specific action; for example, one pending suit asks 

a court to compel EPA to maintain the ozone standard at 75 ppb instead of 

lowering it to 70 ppb. A court may direct EPA to take specific actions as these 

cases are resolved, which will require changes to EPA regulations. Moreover, as 

EPA Administrator, you could simply direct the Agency to amend its regulations to 

do the very thing your lawsuit asked a court to do in the first place. This also 

creates an unresolvable conflict of interests. 

• Will you recuse yourself, without waiver and for the entirety of your tenure as 

EPA Administrator, from any agency proceedings that a) directly result from the 

resolution of or b) are related to the "particular matters" that your Ethics 

Agreement agrees you should be recused from? If not, why not, and why do you 

not believe that such agency proceedings would be covered by your recusal 

under the applicable Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive 

Branch? 

As EPA Administrator I will recuse from participation in litigation in matters 

in which I represented the State of Oklahoma, unless I receive informed 

consent from the State of Oklahoma and the permission of relevant federal 

ethics officials. I understand that this does not extend to regulatory 

rulemaking of general applicability, which would not create a conflict under 

applicable rules. 

22. Our oceans are essential for life, and much of what happens on land 

ultimately ends up in our oceans. There are many ways in which our actions on 

land can both positively and negatively affect marine life and the marine 

environment. Under the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act 

(MPRSA), the EPA ensures that harmful substances are not dumped into the 

120 
860 

marine environment. Additionally, reducing ocean pollution is a global goal in 

which the U.S. is an active participant. 

• In your opinion, what role does the EPA have in protecting our oceans and the 

marine life within? 

• How specifically will the EPA, under your administration, ensure that harmful 

manmade substances do not end up in our oceans? 

• How will the EPA continue to ensure the U.S. is a leader in reducing ocean 

pollution, and assisting other countries in reducing pollution that makes it into our 

oceans? 

If confirmed, I will carry out the authorities and responsibilities given to EPA 

by Congress. These include responsibilities under the Marine Protection, 

Research and Sanctuaries Act. 

23.The greenhouse gas effect traps outgoing longwave radiation causing a 

radiative imbalance of Earth, ultimately leading to the warming of the globe. The 

fundamental physics of climate change are well settled. 

•Are you aware of the theory of radiative balance of the Earth? Can you briefly 

describe it? 

•Do you understand Planck's law and the difference between shortwave vs. 

longwave radiation, and how that relates to Earth's energy balance? 

•Do you agree that disturbances to this equilibrium can warm or cool the Earth? 

•Are you aware of the atmospheric circulation and oceanic currents that transport 

heat from the Equator to the poles? 

•Due to the complexity of the climate system, there are lag times between 

changes in certain conditions, such as the amount of carbon dioxide in the 

atmosphere, and other observable changes, such as the temperature of the deep 

ocean. If an action by the United States or world today, could positively or 

negative benefit the future, say 50 to 100 years down the road, is that an 

important consideration? 

•Are you aware that there is less ice on land in such places as Antarctica and 

Greenland than in previous years since the Industrial Revolution? What do you 

believe is causing this decrease in mass of ice on land? 

• To where do you believe the water from ice melt on land goes, and do you 

believe that could cause global sea levels to rise? 

•Do you disagree that additional greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere, such 

as carbon dioxide, will cause a smaller magnitude outgoing longwave radiation to 

escape to space? Please explain. 

•Do you disagree that the burning of fossil fuels, such as oil or natural gas, cause 

carbon dioxide to be released into the atmosphere? Please explain. 

•Do you disagree that if fossil fuels were not extracted and burned, less carbon 

dioxide would be released into the atmosphere? Please explain. 

•Therefore, is it possible, if not probable, that humans releasing greenhouse 

gases into the atmosphere could cause more heat to be trapped by the 

atmosphere? Please explain. 

121 
861 

•Do you understand that the concept address is the previous question is the basis 

of human-caused climate change? Please explain. 

•If not human burning of fossil fuels, how do you explain the observed increase in 

carbon dioxide in atmosphere? 

•What is a safe level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Please provide this 

number in parts per million. Please explain. 

•If states want to individually take measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions 

will you allow them to do so? If yes, how will you support them? If not, why does 

the EPA have the authority to stop a state from implementing measures to curb 

greenhouse gases? 

If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any regulatory actions are based on 

the most up to date and objective scientific data, including the ever-evolving 

understanding of the impact increasing greenhouse gases have on our 

changing climate. I will also adhere to the applicable statutory authorities to 

fulfill EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment 

consistent with the process and rule of law established by congress. I also 

believe the Administrator has an important role when it comes to the 

regulation of carbon dioxide, which I will fulfill consistent with 

Massachusetts v. EPA and the agency's Endangerment Finding on 

Greenhouse Gases respective of the applicable statutory framework 

established by Congress. I believe the most effective path towards 

achieving these objectives is through close partnership with the states 

granting them regulatory leeway as ascribed by the rule of law. 

24. If states want to individually take measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions 

will you allow them to do so? If yes, how will you support them? If not, why does 

the EPA have the authority to stop a state from implementing measures to curb 

greenhouse gases? 

Yes, states are free to pursue regulatory measures to address greenhouse 

gas emissions under state legal authority. 

25.A recently released report by Solar Power Rocks gave Oklahoma a grade of 

"F" and found that the "solar industry has been stymied at every turn." 

•The length of return for a 5-kilowatt solar array installation is 16 years in 

Oklahoma, compared to the just 4 years in Massachusetts. Why do you believe 

that is the case? 

•In 2014, the Oklahoma legislature passed legislation putting a surcharge on 

rooftop solar. Do you support this? Why or why not? 

I am not familiar with "lengths of return" or the potential differences in such 

lengths of return between states, and thus have no opinion as to the cause 

122 
862 

of any such differences. I am not familiar with the legislation you reference, 

and have formulated no opinion with regard to the wisdom of it as a matter 

of Oklahoma policy. 

26. Last week, in his nomination hearing, Rex Tillerson dismissed the importance 

of America being energy independent. If you are confirmed as EPA Administrator, 

you will oversee tailpipe standards for cars and SUVs and the renewable fuel 

standard, two important polices that support energy independence by reducing oil 

consumption in America. In your view, should achieving energy independence be 

a priority for America? 

As Congress indicated in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007, domestic production of renewable fuel contributes to our nation's 

"greater energy independence and security." Our energy independence will 

best be achieved by an "all-of-the-above" strategy without the government 

picking winners and losers. Setting motor vehicle emissions standards is a 

complex task that requires careful balancing of several competing factors. 

Setting such standards also requires coordination with NHTSA, which 

continues to administer the CAFE program. I will consider the relevant 

factors carefully and will coordinate closely with NHTSA on any motor 

vehicle emissions standards that will be addressed during my tenure if I am 

confirmed as Administrator. 

27.A cornerstone of science is impartiality and following the facts. This is what has 

allowed the United States to be a world leader in science. 

•Do you commit to allowing EPA scientists to do their jobs and not interfere with 

their science? 

•How will you ensure that scientists, such as those employed by EPA, are allowed 

to continue their work unimpeded by potential challenges due to their topic of 

research? 

•Do you agree that only scientists and technical experts, not impeded by political 

influence, should edit scientific work? If not, why? 

•In your opinion, what is the role that a public affairs office has in editing any 

potential publically available statement or information? 

•Do you pledge that your all of your work as EPA Administrator will be guided by 

the best available science? 

•Do you commit to maintaining EPA's Scientific Integrity Policy regardless of 

research area? 

If confirmed, it will be a privilege to work with EPA scientists and the 

thousands of other public servants at EPA. I have no first-hand knowledge 

of the role of the public affairs office as referenced in the question and, if 

confirmed, I expect to learn more about the office. Indeed, I fully believe, as 

former EPA administrators have stated, that sound, objective science must 

!23 
863 

serve as "the backbone" of EPA actions. I have no first-hand knowledge of 

the specific scientific integrity policy referenced in the question and, if 

confirmed, I commit to thoroughly reviewing the policy and to follow 

applicable laws and federal guidance regarding scientific integrity, 

information quality, and transparency. 

28.1t has been reported by Wired that President-elect Trump plans to undo 

President Obama's June 2013 Climate Action Plan, and remove materials from 

EPA websites. While we understand revising policies from administration to 

administration, the reports of removing environmental data from EPA websites is 

troubling. Will you commit to keeping environmental records, data, and records 

provided as part of previous rulemakings publically available on the EPA's 

website? 

•Will you commit to ensuring that any current publically available dataset remains 

available and easy to access? If not, please explain. 

•Will you ensure that all data interpretation tools available on the EPA website 

remain publically available and easy to access? If not, please explain. 

I have not been briefed on any changes to the EPA website following the 

transfer of power from the Obama Administration to the Trump 

Administration. That being said, I commit to reviewing the materials that are 

included on the EPA site if I am confirmed. 

29.1 have heard that EPA's Fiscal Year 2018 budget request may include a 17% 

budget cut. . I am troubled by this reported planned cut to EPA budget and urge 

you to reconsider this drastic move. Will you maintain robust funding for scientific 

research at EPA, and to ensure that environmental data continues to be 

collected? 

I have no first-hand knowledge of EPA's development of its FY 2018 budget 

request. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the limited resources 

appropriated to EPA by Congress are managed wisely in pursuit of that 

important mission and in accordance with all applicable legal authorities. 

30.Hydraulic fracturing (tracking) now provides more than half of the United States 

oil output. In 2000, tracking provided less than 2% of America oil. This has 

dramatically changed the energy landscape of the United States. 

•Do you believe that hydraulic fracturing (or tracking) is the cause of the increased 

frequency and strength of earthquakes in Oklahoma? Please explain. 

•As Attorney General have you taken any actions related to earthquakes caused 

by tracking? 

•In May 2016, you testified that the decline in the coal industry was due to the 

price drop of natural gas and not EPA regulation. Do you stand by this statement? 

If not, why have your views changed? 

124 
864 

•Do you believe that fracking can contaminate drinking water supplies? Please 

explain. 

Scientists from the state level up to the National Research Council have 

found that the act of hydraulic fracturing itself poses very little risk of 

creating seismic events. Seismicity concerns related to the oil and natural 

gas industries are more commonly tied to the underground injection of 

wastewater which is regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act. As I stated in 

my testimony, in Oklahoma the Corporation Commission has jurisdiction 

over this matter and I have been in contact with that agency that has taken 

very meaningful steps to address seismic concerns. I believe that there is 

not one single factor that has precipitated the decline in the coal industry 

alone. Finally, I agree with EPA's Dr. Thomas Burke who, following the 

release of EPA's final hydraulic fracturing water study, reiterated that the 

Agency only found a small number of confirmed cases of contamination. 

With well over one million wells that have been hydraulically fractured in the 

United States the evidence found by EPA suggests a very low likelihood of 

drinking water contamination from hydraulic fracturing or its associated 

activates. 

31.This past December, the EPA released a report entitled, "Hydraulic Fracturing 

for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking 

Water Resources in the United States." The EPA found scientific evidence that 

fracking activities can affect drinking water supplies. 

•Have you read this report? 

•What steps will you take as Administrator to reduce the possibility of drinking 

water contamination due to hydraulic fracturing activities? 

•Of those chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing activities, the EPA found that 

nearly 200 might pose a public health risk. Will you commit to continuing to study 

these identified chemicals and the potential health risks, as well as identify other 

potential harmful chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing activities? 

I am familiar with the report and if confirmed as EPA Administrator I will 

faithfully execute my legal duties to administer laws as authorized by 

Congress including the Safe Drinking Water Act. Understanding and 

studying risks to local communities is something central to the role as 

Administrator and I will continue to study potential risk using the Agencies 

many tools. 

32.Do you agree the Clean Air Act health benefits significantly outweigh costs? 

For example, a peer-reviewed study found that in 2010 alone the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990, which reduced fine particulate pollution and ozone, avoided 

more than 160,000 premature deaths, 130,000 heart attacks, prevented 13 million 

missed workdays, and avoided 3.2 million missed school days by children. 

125 
865 

Based on the limited information provided, it is unclear as to the specific 

study referenced. However, as I indicated in my testimony, I am incredibly 

proud of the progress the U.S. has made to provide public health 

protections and improve our environmental stewardship while also growing 

our economy. If confirmed, I commit to continue this progress and protect 

the American people through commonsense and lawful regulations. 

33.According to the Consumer Reports National Research Center survey 

completed in June 2016, 84 percent of Americans feel that automakers should 

continue to improve fuel economy for all vehicle types. About three-quarters of 

survey respondents specifically indicated that the U.S. government should require 

vehicle manufacturers to improve the fuel economy of their vehicles over time. As 

you may know, when the government stopped increasing fuel economy standards 

for two decades in the mid-1980s, vehicle fuel economy stopped improving. Now 

that we are once again making progress, what will you do to make sure that 

vehicle fuel economy continues to improve as Americans expect? 

While the EPA regulates emissions under the Clean Air Act, it is true that 

Congress vested authority to regulate fuel economy through the Corporate 

Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards" framework set forth originally in 

the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Congress vested responsibility for 

the CAFE program in the Department of Transportation, not the EPA; 

accordingly, I take no position on Congress's policy decision on this 

subject, or on the Department of Transportation's administration of the 

CAFE program. If confirmed as EPA Administration, I would administer the 

Clean Air Act in accordance with the terms of the Act, including Congress's 

statutory policy objectives, and would do so on the basis of the factual 

record in any given proceeding. 

34.After conducting its Midterm Evaluation of fuel economy standards for model 

years 2022 through 2025, the EPA determined that automakers were wellpositioned to meet the standards at lower costs than previously estimated. In fact, 

the EPA chose to retain the current standards to provide regulatory certainty for 

the auto industry despite a technical record suggesting that standards could be 

made more stringent. 

Among the technologies that the EPA considered in reaching its determination 

that fuel economy standards could be readily achieved were so-called "off-cycle 

technologies." Off-cycle technologies are innovations such as more efficient air 

conditioning through enhanced window glass that reduces solar load, stop-start 

systems, solar panels, active aerodynamics, and adaptive cruise control. By 

reducing the energy demands placed on the engine, these technologies serve to 

improve fuel economy and reduce tailpipe emissions of carbon pollution. Vehicle 

manufacturers may claim "off-cycle credits" for these carbon pollution-reducing 

technologies which may have benefits not adequately captured as part the 

126 
866 

standard fuel economy testing procedures. 

Americans in Massachusetts, Ohio, Tennessee, North Carolina, Michigan, Indiana 

and across the country have good-paying jobs that depend on vehicle 

manufacturers continuing to demand these innovative technologies. 

In your hearing, you explained how important it is for the EPA to consider jobs and 

economic impacts as part of its analysis and decision-making. If confirmed, would 

you support the "off-cycle credit" mechanism included that the EPA included in its 

fuel economy standards-a mechanism that drives American innovation and job 

growth? If not, please explain your position. 

If confirmed, my job as Administrator would be to administer the statutes 

that Congress has enacted, including the statutory objectives that Congress 

incorporates into those statutes. If Congress chooses to enact legislation to 

promote certain technologies, such as "off-cycle" vehicle technologies, 

then those statutory priorities would fall within the EPA Administrator's 

responsibility. If confirmed, I would look forward to working with Congress 

on any such statutory proposals that it legislates. 

35.1s the carbon dioxide that comes out of car tailpipes physically or chemically 

different from the carbon dioxide that comes out of power plant smokestacks? If 

so, how? 

As a matter of law, Congress elected to enact different statutory frameworks 

for regulating emissions from stationary sources and mobile sources: Title I 

of the Clean Air Act for the former, Title II for the latter. As the Supreme 

Court recognized in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2013), these two 

frameworks have significant differences. 

36.Would the impact on the climate system of carbon dioxide from power plants 

be any different from that of carbon dioxide from tailpipe emissions? If so, in what 

way? 

As noted above, Congress elected to enact different statutory frameworks 

for regulating emissions from stationary sources and mobile sources: Title I 

of the Clean Air Act for the former, Title II for the latter. As the Supreme 

Court recognized in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2013), these two 

frameworks have significant differences. 

37.Do you agree that the power sector and the transportation sectors each 

contribute at least a quarter of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions? 

127 
867 

According to the EPA (https:ffwww.epa.govfghgemissionsfsourcesgreenhouse-gas-emissions), in 2014 electricity generation accounted for 

30% of total greenhouse gas emissions (quantified in terms of metric tons 

of C02 equivalent), and transportation accounted for 26%. 

38.Congress established protections for the air in national parks and wilderness 

areas in the Clean Air Act amendments of 1977. The quality of the air in New 

England parks like Cape Cod national seashore and Acadia national park suffers 

from pollution blown in from elsewhere. Last summer you joined other Attorneys 

General in comments objecting to the EPA's amendments to the Regional Haze 

Rule. Given your previous objection, if confirmed as EPA administrator, what will 

you do to fulfill the 40-year directive from Congress to protect and restore the air 

quality of national parks like Cape Cod and Acadia even if it requires states from 

outside the region to reduce their air pollution? 

As I stated in my testimony before the Committee, I agree that the Clean Air 

Act gives EPA an important role in addressing interstate pollution issues, 

among many other things. All legal positions that I took in my capacity as 

Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma were in my capacity as an 

advocate. If confirmed, I will consider all matters presented to me with an 

open mind and will work to reach conclusions that are reflected in the 

administrative record of each matter and that comport with Congress's 

intent in enacting the Act. 

39.The 1977 Clean Air Act amendments also provide a role for federal land 

managers in protecting the air quality of national parks and wilderness areas. If 

confirmed as EPA Administrator, how will you make sure that EPA honors the 

obligations federal land managers have under the Clean Air Act and that their 

expertise is incorporated into the policies necessary to achieve the goal of natural 

air quality? 

I am confirmed, I will exercise my authority consistent with Congress's 

intent in enacting the Act. This includes acting transparently in a manner 

that takes into account the views of the federal land managers where the 

Act calls for their views, such as in assessing visibility impacts from new 

major sources in the preconstruction permitting process. 

40.When Congress passed the original Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) in 2005, 

"inadequate domestic supply" and "severe harm" to the economy were the only 

conditions under which the general waiver authority allowing the EPA to waive the 

RFS could be invoked. Despite this clear direction from Congress, in its 2014-

2015-2016 final Renewable Volume Obligation (RVO), EPA used "available 

refueling infrastructure" as a condition to waive the standard even though 

Congress expressly rejected it. Do you believe that EPA's use of this reason for 

128 
868 

granting a waiver in the 2014-2015-2016 RVO is consistent with Congressional 

intent and the law? 

As I stated at my hearing, I believe the EPA Administrator should use its 

waiver authority judiciously and not to undermine or question the 

commitments made by Congress when enacting the RFS. 

41.The Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) is one of our country's most important 

tools to reduce carbon pollution from the transportation sector. The 2007 

amendments to the RFS included increasing volumes of cellulosic and advanced 

biofuels. If confirmed, will you increase the blending targets for cellulosic and 

advanced biofuels, including biodiesel, given Congressional intent? What role can 

EPA play to facilitate the expansion of cellulosic and advanced biofuels, including 

biodiesel? 

Section 211 (0) of the Clean Air Act contains enumerated tables of applicable 

target volumes of renewable fuel, specifically cellulosic and advanced, for 

calendar years 2006 through 2022. As I indicated in my nomination hearing, 

it is not the job of the Administrator of the EPA to do anything other than 

administer the program according to the intent of Congress. If confirmed, I 

will work to administer this program in accordance with statute and 

Congressional intent. 

42.1n response to an Inspector General report, the EPA announced in August that 

it would update the estimates of carbon pollution reduction from renewable fuels. 

If confirmed as Administrator, will you commit to completing this update and using 

the best available commercial and scientific information, including a recent USDA 

report on the emissions profile of renewable fuels? 

I have not had an opportunity to review the referenced report, but, if 

confirmed, I will review it. 

43.1n a response to a Renewable Fuels Standard question, you stated during the 

hearing that "we have less consumption today." Please provide the annual U.S. 

consumption of gasoline since 2005 as well as forecasts for 2017 and 2018. Is 

U.S. consumption of gasoline declining or increasing? 

In the course of my nomination hearing, I referenced market conditions that 

have changed since 2005, when the initial RFS program was enacted. When 

the program was updated in 2007, Congress could not predict how the 

129 
869 

market conditions would further change, from decreased consumption to 

more fuel-efficient vehicles, and therefore provided the Administrator with 

the ability to waive certain provisions contained in the Act. As I stated at my 

hearing, I do not believe the EPA Administrator should use this waiver 

authority to undermine the commitments made by Congress when enacting 

the RFS. 

44.EPA set out to reduce mercury, arsenic, and other toxic chemicals from coal 

and oil-fired power plans through a rule that you sued to block. Power plants 

account for half of the mercury emissions in the United States and EPA's Mercury 

and Air Toxins Standards rule could save up to 11,000 lives and save $90 billion 

on health costs each and every year across the United States. 

• The World Health Organization states that mercury has a toxic effect on humans, 

and in particular poses a significant threat to child development. Do you agree 

that mercury is a toxic substance and exposure to it should be limited? Please 

explain. 

•Most people are exposed to mercury from eating fish and shellfish. Do you agree 

that we should take appropriate steps that reduce the amount of mercury in fish 

and shellfish? Please explain. 

As I stated in my testimony before the Committee, mercury is appropriately 

regulated as a hazardous air pollutant under Section 112 of the Clean Air 

Act. If I am confirmed as Administrator, I will regulate under Section 112 in 

a manner that is consistent with Congress's intent in enacting that 

provision. I will also faithfully administer other federal statutes that regulate 

mercury to the extent that they are under my jurisdiction, including the 

Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008, the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable 

Battery Management Act of 1996, the Clean Water Act, the Emergency 

Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

45.Donald Trump recently bemoaned "you're not allowed to use hair spray 

anymore because it affects the ozone." Hairspray is still available for sale, just 

without the chemical responsible for the ozone hole. 

The ozone hole was first discovered in the mid-1980s. The world quickly came 

together to address the ozone hole through the Montreal Protocol. Actions were 

taken prior to confirmation of the hypothesis that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) due 

to human emissions, that chemical Donald Trump alluded to in his statement, to 

address the ozone hole. The treaties to address the ozone hole were the first 

universally ratified treaties in the history of the United Nations. 

•Do you agree with the overwhelming scientific evidence that CFCs are the cause 

of the historic depletion of the ozone layer? If not, why not? 

130 
870 

•Do you consider the "Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone 

Layer" to be a success? If not, why not? 

•Considering the success of the world coming together to solve an environmental 

problem in that instance, do you believe that such a framework could be used as 

an example to solve other global environmental problems? If not, why not? 

I consider the Montreal Protocol to be a successful example of the world 

coming together to solve an important environmental problem and that the 

Montreal Protocol could serve as an example to the President as he 

exercises his foreign affairs powers and to the Senate as it considers 

ratification of any treaty that may come before it. 

46.Mr. Pruitt, you have repeatedly sued EPA to overturn regulations that seek to 

protect Americans from the effects of soot, ozone, greenhouse gases, mercury, 

arsenic and other air pollutants. These toxic air pollutants are often blown east 

from large industrial and energy sources in the Midwest, particularly impacting air 

quality and public health from Maine and Massachusetts to the Smoky Mountains. 

•EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which provides independent 

scientific advice to EPA on its air pollution standards, said that ozone causes a 

"decrease in lung function, increase in respiratory symptoms, and increase in 

airway inflammation." Do you agree with this scientific conclusion? Please explain. 

•EPA projected that its final Cross State Air Pollution Rule would avoid up to 

34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 non-fatal heart attacks and 400,000 asthma 

attacks- every year. Do you agree with this conclusion? Please explain. 

•The EPA concluded that the health effects associated with fine soot particles 

include premature death, more ER visits and increased frequency of chronic 

respiratory disease. Do you agree with this conclusion? Please explain. 

As I stated in my testimony to the committee, all legal positions that I took 

in my capacity as Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma were in my 

capacity as an advocate. If confirmed as Administrator, I will consider all 

matters presented to me with an open mind and will work to reach 

conclusions that are reflected in the administrative record of each matter 

and that comport with Congress's intent in enacting the Act. 

47.Lead is not just a problem in Flint, Michigan, but all over the United States 

including Oklahoma. In your capacity as Attorney General of Oklahoma, what did 

you and your office do to prevent childhood lead exposure? 

While I am concerned about children's health, matters of the sort you 

reference would be handled by Oklahoma's environmental regulators at the 

131 
871 

Department of Environmental Quality and the Oklahoma Water Resources 

Board. 

48.During your confirmation hearing before the Environment and Public Works 

Committee, in response to a question, you indicated that you did not know if there 

is a safe level of lead. Scientific experts at the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization, among other leading 

scientific bodies have repeatedly warned of the dangers of lead, specifically to 

children, concluding that there is no level of lead exposure that is safe. 

•Do you agree that exposure to lead is dangerous and that no level of exposure 

should be considered safe? 

•If confirmed, will you commit to making reducing childhood lead exposure a 

priority? 

•What specific strategies will you implement to reduce lead exposure? 

•Will you advocate for more funding for the programs that reduce lead exposure 

risk, especially in children? 

I have not myself reviewed the scientific studies correlating blood lead 

levels to impacts in children. However, it is my understanding that neither 

EPA nor CDC have identified a "safe" level of exposure, but instead have 

adopted levels appropriate for action under their specific statutory 

authorities. If confirmed I will carry out EPA's authorities to reduce 

exposure to lead, including exposures by children. 

49.The EPA is tasked with implemented the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 

and ensuring that the drinking water supply for many Americans is safe. Given the 

Flint, Michigan drinking water crisis, many Americans that took clean water for 

granted are now being faced with questions about a basic necessity. 

• The Water Infrastructure Improvement for the Nation (WIIN) Act of 2016, or WIIN 

Act, passed Congress was signed by the President, and became public law on 

December 12, 2016. Will you commit to, as expedient as practicable, 

implementing the changes to the Safe Drinking Water Act? 

•The human-caused drinking water crisis in Flint, Michigan has highlighted the 

widespread concern of lead in drinking water pipes across the nation. Additionally, 

nearly 4 million Americans may be unknowingly drinking unsafe water. Are you 

aware of how many public water systems in the United States have issues with 

lead in drinking water above safe levels? 

•If a public official knowingly exposes their community to dangerous levels of 

contaminants, such as lead, should that official be held accountable for such 

actions? What do you think are acceptable punishments for such an action? 

•If confirmed as EPA Administrator, what will you do to ensure that communicates 

across America have safe drinking water that is not contaminated with lead? 

132 
872 

If confirmed I will fully implement the changes to the Safe Drinking Water 

regulatory requirements made by the WIIN Act, including the changes to the 

notification requirements relating to lead levels in drinking water. If funding 

is provided, I will also implement the assistance programs authorized in that 

Act. I also will fully implement the existing authorities under the SDWA, 

including, as appropriate, EPA's authority to take emergency action. If 

confirmed I will seek a briefing from EPA staff on the number of public water 

systems that are not in compliance with the SDWA Lead and Copper Rule. I 

am unaware of EPA authorities to punish individuals other than to seek the 

resignation of responsible EPA officials, such as the resignation of the 

former Regional Administrator of EPA Region 5 who resigned after her 

failure to act upon information regarding the lead levels in the Flint water 

system became public. 

50. The updated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires that EPA evaluate 

the risks to "potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations" and take action to 

protect these subpopulations from all identified risks. Do you commit to follow this 

statutory requirement? 

Yes. 

51.As Oklahoma Attorney General, you have consistently advocated for the rights 

of states in the area of environmental protections. Will you apply the preemption 

provisions in TSCA in a manner that is consistent with the statute and your prestated philosophy when it comes to state leadership on environmental protection 

matters? 

As I stated in my letter to Senators lnhofe and Boxer from April9, 2016, I 

believe the Lautenberg Act ensures states have an important voice at the 

table and I will apply the law as enacted by Congress. 

52.The new law greatly increases transparency and provides EPA with an 

obligation to protect against unjustified claims of confidentiality by industry. Do 

you commit to uphold the bill's statutory requirements in this area? 

As I stated in my letter to Senators lnhofe and Boxer from April9, 2016, I 

believe public dissemination of information about chemicals is critical to 

ensure public health and safety is upheld. In my view the Lautenberg Act 

struck a common sense balance between protecting confidential business 

information and informing the public and I intend to apply the law as 

enacted by Congress. 

133 
873 

53.Do you agree that transparency is important to meaningful public participation 

in EPA's work on chemicals under TSCA? Do you commit to increasing 

transparency by fully implementing the provisions in the new law to prevent 

unjustified claims of confidentiality by industry? 

As I have previously stated I believe the Lautenberg Act struck an 

appropriate balance between protecting confidential business information 

and informing the public and I intend to apply the law as enacted by 

Congress. 

54.0ne of the reasons Congress was able to agree on a major re-write of TSCA 

was because of the fundamental agreement we made to clarify the law to ensure 

that costs could not be considered when EPA decided whether a chemical was 

safe or what level of a chemical was safe. Costs could only be a factor when 

deciding what type of regulation to require to meet that safe standard. Do you 

continue to support this approach? Would you oppose any effort to change this 

reformed approach to regulation? 

If confirmed I intend to faithfully execute all provisions of the Lauten berg 

Act as enacted by Congress. 

55. Nearly three decades ago, President George H. W. Bush attempted 

unsuccessfully to ban asbestos. Asbestos is banned in 55 countries across the 

globe and the World Health Organization says, quote, "all forms of asbestos are 

carcinogenic to humans". More than 30 Americans die each day from diseases 

like asbestosis and cancer caused by asbestos. Yet, in his 1997 book, The Art of 

the Comeback, President-elect Trump stated, that asbestos is, quote, "1 00 

percent safe, once applied" and that he, quote, "believe(s] that the movement 

against asbestos was led by the mob." Do you agree with Mr. Trump that 

asbestos is 100 percent safe once applied or that the movement against asbestos 

was led by the mob? 

Asbestos has been identified by the EPA as a high-priority chemical that 

requires a risk evaluation following the process established by the 

Lautenberg Act to determine whether conditions of use of the chemical 

substance pose an unreasonable risk. Prejudging the outcome of that risk 

evaluation process would not be appropriate. 

134 
874 

56.1n 2015, I released a reported entitled, "Failing the Grade: Asbestos in 

America's Schools."5 Asbestos is still found in schools across America, and the 

true scope of the problem is still hard to ascertain. More than 53 million American 

children and six million American adults spend large portions of their days in 

school buildings that may contain dangerous environmental hazards. My report 

laid out recommendations on how to address the findings of the report. 

•Millions of students attend schools that may have asbestos and this is clearly a 

widespread problem. How would the EPA under your direction, if confirmed, begin 

to assess the true scope of the problem? 

•Will you commit to raising awareness among students, parents, teachers, and 

other employees about persistent asbestos hazards in school buildings? If not, 

why not? 

•Do you support periodic reporting requirements for schools to report their 

progress related to the management and abatement of asbestos? If not, why not? 

•Do you support additional funding for enforcement actions for schools that do not 

follow the law and may be exposing children to asbestos? If not, why not? 

•Do you support public access to information about where asbestos can be found 

in products, school buildings, and elsewhere to empower the public to avoid 

preventable asbestos exposures? If not, why not? 

•Do you support providing consumers with access to current information about 

asbestos-containing products? If not, why not? 

•Do you support schools that are known to have asbestos updating their reports 

of where asbestos is located within a school? If not, why not? 

•Do you support states communicating information to the EPA on their progress 

with implementation of asbestos response plans? If not, why not? 

•Do you support continued research and outreach to improve public awareness of 

the danger of asbestos exposure? If not, why not? 

If confirmed I will take the responsibility of protecting human health and the 

environment very seriously and in accordance with the legal authorities 

established by Congress. EPA has identified asbestos as a high-priority 

chemical and is now required to set the scope of review as well as conduct 

a risk evaluation of the conditions of use of the substance. Without 

prejudging that review process any conditions of use of asbestos or any 

other chemical substance that pose an unreasonable risk are required to be 

addressed under the law and appropriate communication of chemical 

reviews as well as transparency in the process is an important aspect of the 

law as passed by Congress. In addition to the Lautenberg Act, in 1986, 

Congress enacted the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) 

and then later amended the act in 1990 to modify EPA's school asbestos 

remediation program. While I have not assessed the appropriateness of 

periodic reporting requirements, if confirmed I intend to use the authorities 

granted to the Agency by Congress under TSCA and other statutes to 

135 
875 

assess potential dangers as well as inform and protect the public as 

appropriate. 

57.Last year entitled, "The ABCs of PCBs: A Toxic Threat to America's Schools."6 

Although Congress and the EPA banned the production and most uses of PCBs 

in 1979, the toxic chemical is still found in many schools across this country. In 

addition, my report laid out six recommendations. 

•Since up 30% of students may be exposed to PCBs, this is a widespread 

problem. How would the EPA under your direction, if confirmed, begin to assess 

the true scope of the problem? 

•PCBs are found within caulk and fluorescent light ballast in American schools. 

How would you encourage the removal of PCB-containing materials? Since these 

ballast are nearing the end of their useful life, EPA has said that it "recommends 

all PCB-containing FLBs be removed from lighting fixtures". Would you support 

the promulgation of a regulation under section 6(e) of TSCA that updates EPA's 

current regulations for PCBs and includes a requirement that all PCB-containing 

ballast be removed from schools and daycare facilities? If not, why not? 

• There are multiple local education agencies and schools that have been seeking 

the advice and assistance of the EPA in dealing with PCB issues. Will you commit 

to assisting these agencies and schools and ensuring that the guidance EPA 

provides across all Regions of EPA is consistently and proactively provided? If 

not, why not? 

•Do you support a requirement that each each school that was built or retrofitted 

between 1950 and 1979 (and therefor may contain PCBs) undergo a survey (to 

be administered by the local educational agency) in order to determine whether 

and where PCBs may be located within a school? If not, why not? 

•Do you support a requirement for recordkeeping by state and local educational 

agencies of testing for, response to, and remediation of PCB hazards in schools? 

If not, why not? 

•Do you support the EPA updating its testing guidance to encourage inspections 

of all schools built or retrofitted between 1950 and 1979, and improve its efforts to 

proactively and consistently communicate testing guidance to states, local 

education agencies, and schools with potential PCB hazards? If not, why not? 

•Do you support the EPA developing guidance regarding the means by which 

parents, teachers, and employees should be notified of potential PCB hazards by 

schools and daycare facilities, including the manner in which such hazards should 

be described? If not, why not? 

•Do you support the development and provision of updated guidance on the 

proper remediation of PCBs by EPA for schools, daycare facilities and other 

entities to use? If not, why not? 

•Do you support the EPA proactively and regularly sharing best practices and 

other information outreach to states and school districts, and enforcement 

6 https://www .markev .)enatc.goviimo/media/doc/20 I ()-1 0-05-Markcv-PCfl-Rcport6.lli'sotl'CBs.pdf 

136 
876 

activities, related to PCB hazards in schools and daycare facilities across all EPA 

regions? If not, why not? 

•Do you support EPA regional offices increasing their outreach to states and local 

education agencies to make them aware of available EPA's PCB regulations, 

guidance and resources? If not, why not? 

•Do you support the EPA updating its current guidance on PCB hazards in 

schools to incorporate lessons learned from previous remediation projects and 

best available science? If not, why not? 

•Do you support schools having detailed plans on how a school specifically plans 

to ensure the proper removal of PCBs before starting a PCB remediation project? 

Please explain. 

•Do you support the authorization and appropriations of money for the testing for, 

response to, and remediation of PCB hazards and other environment hazards in 

schools? Please explain. 

Addressing the issues of possible harmful exposures to chemicals in 

schools is an issue I would take very seriously if confirmed as EPA 

Administrator. While protecting children from exposure to chemical 

substances of concern it is important to have all the facts and ensure that 

an action does not create unintended consequences or put children at 

potentially greater peril via risk shifting or the possibility of remedial actions 

resulting in greater exposure to a substance. While I would not prejudge a 

regulatory outcome under the TSCA or any other law, I will work 

collaboratively with state and local governments and citizens to address 

issues and ensuring EPA regions are consistent and performing their 

legally required duties will be a priority if confirmed. 

58. The Environmental Working Group reported that Oklahoma led the nation in 

pesticide-related illness and deaths between 2000 and 2010 based on data from 

the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 7 

•Are you aware that your state, Oklahoma, leads the United States in pesticiderelated illness and deaths? Why do you think this is the case? 

•Recent reports have suggested that the increased use of pesticides is linked to 

the rapid decline in the bee population. What is your understanding of the science 

explaining the cause of the decline in bees in the United States? 

I am not personally familiar with the report referenced in this question or 

generally the rate of pesticide usage in Oklahoma. I am generally aware of 

the important role bees play as pollinators, but it is unclear from the 

information provided in the question what specific reports are being 

discussed. If confirmed as Administrator, I would expect to be briefed by 

EPA staff before taking action on this issue and would work to ensure EPA 

137 
877 

followed all applicable legal requirements and made its decisions based on 

sound science. 

59. Racial minorities and low-income communities are disproportionately affected 

by environmental pollution, siting of waste disposal facilities, and other industrial 

pollution causing activities. In many instances, the combination of poverty and 

race as well as lax enforcement and oversight of industrial activities results in 

worsened health outcomes by these communities. 

•How will you address environmental justice and equity for minority and poor 

communities through EPA programs? 

•What will you do to improve health equity as administrator of the EPA? 

•What are your plans on reducing toxic pollution and disproportional burden of 

pollutants in communities of color? 

•What will you do to increase enforcement and oversight in communities that are 

bearing the burden of environmental hazards? 

•In your confirmation hearing, you committed to making environmental justice a 

top priority. If confirmed, will you commit to dedicating funding to assist minority 

and poor communities with resources and technical assistance to better engage 

with the EPA and industry about pollution activities and concerns occurring in their 

communities? 

•What will you do to improve the EPA's office of Civil Rights to ensure that the 

EPA is in compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964? 

•Will you uphold and make a top priority throughout the agency's work, Executive 

order 12898, which requires federal agencies to make "achieving environmental 

justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its 

programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 

populations." 

•Do you vow to ensure that environmental justice activities throughout the agency 

remains focused on poor and minority communities? 

•EPA recently developed the agency's EJ2020 action Agenda to better deliver on 

its historical promises of reducing disparities in environmental protection. Will you 

utilize and uphold this guidance and procedures outlined in this document 

throughout the work of the agency? Please explain. 

As I testified, the Administrator plays an important role regarding 

environmental justice. If confirmed, I would work to faithfully execute the 

laws EPA is responsible for administering, in order to protect human health 

and the environment for all Americans. If confirmed, I would expect EPA to 

operate in an open and transparent manner, consider the views of 

stakeholders as appropriate, act based on sound science, and follow the 

laws as established by Congress, including the Civil Rights Act. I am 

personally unfamiliar with the operations of EPA's Office of Civil Rights and 

details of current indicatives regarding environmental justice referenced in 

the question, but I would expect, if confirmed, I would be briefed by staff 

about ongoing programs and activities before taking any action. 

138 
878 

60.1f you are confirmed, do you commit not to direct the cessation of or otherwise 

impede the investigations or actions of the EPA Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance? If not, why not? 

1 am unfamiliar with the specific details of the actions referenced in the 

question. I would expect to be briefed by staff, in consultation with the 

Department of Justice as appropriate, before taking any action. 

61.For each year since 1995, please provide information regarding the State of 

Oklahoma's environmental enforcement efforts. Specifically, for each year, 

please provide a list that includes: 

•A brief description of each environmental enforcement action (including 

investigations and enforcement proceedings) initiated by the AG's office, including 

the date the action was initiated, the name of the subject of the action, and the 

nature of the action and environmental violation that led thereto. 

• The annual budget of the Office of Environmental Enforcement, both in dollar 

terms and as a percentage of the AG's annual budget. 

•The number of employees in the Office of Environmental Enforcement and in the 

AG's office writ large. 

•A description of each environment enforcement action (including investigations 

and enforcement proceedings) that was closed, including a description of the 

resolution of the matter, whether a fine or penalty was levied (and if so the amount 

of such fine or penalty), whether non-monetary remedies were required (and if so, 

what), and whether a criminal prosecution was initiated in the matter (and if so 

what the resolution of the prosecution was). 

In order for you to receive a comprehensive response to a voluminous 

request of that nature, I would direct you to make a request of the Oklahoma 

Attorney General's Office under the Oklahoma Open Records Act. 

139 
879 

Senator Merkley: 

1. In an interview with The Oklahoman in 2015, you were talking about 

Oklahoma's environmental lawsuit against poultry producers who were polluting 

the Illinois River basin, and you said that in your view, regulation through litigation 

is the wrong approach. However, you have been highly active in bringing lawsuits 

against the EPA, whose regulations typically incorporate information gathered as 

a result of the kind of extensive stakeholder outreach that you seem to value. 

What have your experiences in suing the EPA taught you about how to lead the 

agency? 

My experiences suing the EPA have taught me the value of ensuring that the 

EPA acts lawfully so that the regulations it promulgates are actually put to 

work protecting the environment, rather than being invalidated by courts. 

2. The legal actions that you have brought against the EPA suggest that you feel 

the agency does not have the expertise or skill to make adequate assessments 

about how to maintain environmental standards. How do you propose to improve 

the EPA's capabilities so that the agency can achieve its goats in the proper 

manner? 

The legal challenges I have brought have been to protect the interests of 

Oklahoma. If confirmed, I expect to learn more about EPA's workforce needs 

and ensure that the Agency is working towards achieving its goals in a 

proper manner. 

3. You have said that the "American people are tired of seeing billions of dollars 

drained from our economy due to unnecessary EPA regulations". In a poll taken in 

December 2016 of 2,000 supporters of President-elect Trump, 64% of Trump 

voters support maintaining or increasing the federal budget for environmental 

protection and conservation. 78% of the Trump voters said they supported air 

pollution regulations generally, and 61% said companies should be required to 

reduce their carbon emissions. These are the people who supported Donald 

Trump, the man who nominated you for this position. Do you share the view of the 

majority of Trump voters and support maintaining or increasing the federal budget 

for environmental protection and conservation? Do you share the view of the 

majority of the President-elect's supporters that companies should be required to 

reduce their carbon emissions? 

140 
880 

If confirmed as Administrator, I look forward to working with President 

Trump to achieve his environmental priorities using the tools authorized by 

Congress and respectful of the rule of law. 

4. Several states, including Oregon, Washington, and California, have taken steps 

to regulate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Would you, as the leader of 

the EPA, attempt to undermine state-led attempts to combat climate change? 

I respect and believe the states have a very important role in setting and 

implementing environmental standards that reflect the needs, challenges 

and expectations of their local communities. Congress established a clear 

process by which states may set more stringent standards subject to the 

approval of the Administrator and based on the specific request made and 

the corresponding record submitted. If confirmed and if I receive any such 

requests, I will consider them consistent with applicable statutory 

framework established by Congress. 

5. The EPA produces a wide range of scientific documents. Are you committed to 

allowing EPA scientists the right of last review of all reports, executive summaries, 

press releases and websites related to purely science-based documents? 

If confirmed, it will be my privilege to work with EPA scientists and the 

thousands of other dedicated public servants at EPA who have chosen to 

devote their careers to improving public health and our environment. 

Scientific documents are critical to EPA's decision-making and I commit, if 

confirmed, to ensure EPA scientific documents follow applicable laws and 

federal guidance on scientific integrity, information quality, and 

transparency. 

6. Are you committed to transparency at EPA? If so, will you commit to making 

sure that EPA data is proactive made available to the public, consistent with 

privacy and confidential business information laws? Will you ensure that all data 

and data interpretation tools that are currently on EPA websites continue to be 

publicly available, and, if they become out of date, are archived in an accessible 

manner? 

Yes, I am committed to transparency at EPA. I commit to making sure that 

EPA data is made available to the public consistent with privacy and 

confidentiality laws, and I will ensure that all EPA tools currently available to 

the public will remain accessible to the public and will be archived 

appropriately. 

141 
881 

7. How would you incorporate independent science in your decision making? 

If confirmed, it will be my privilege to work with EPA scientists and the 

thousands of other dedicated public servants at EPA who have chosen to 

devote their careers to improving public health and our environment. I 

believe EPA decision-making should be based on sound, independent 

science, and if confinned, my decision-making will follow applicable laws 

and federal guidance on scientific integrity, infonnation quality, and 

transparency. 

8. Are you familiar with the scientific integrity policies of the EPA? Can you 

commit to adhering to EPA's scientific integrity policies? 

If confirmed, I expect to learn more about EPA's scientific integrity policies 

and I commit to follow applicable laws regarding scientific integrity. 

9. How will you work with the White House Office of Science and Technology 

Policy to ensure that the work of scientists at the EPA, and scientists that provide 

input to the EPA, is free from political and financial influence? 

If confirmed, it will be my privilege to work with EPA scientists and the 

thousands of other dedicated public servants at EPA who have chosen to 

devote their careers to improving public health and our environment. I have 

no first-hand knowledge of the EPA's consultation with the White House 

Office of Science and Technology Policy and, if confirmed, I would expect to 

learn more about EPA's work with the office. Indeed, EPA actions must be 

based on sound, objective science. I commit, if confirmed, to follow 

applicable laws and federal guidance on scientific integrity, information 

quality, and transparency. 

10. Pacific coast shellfish aquaculture is estimated to be a $278 million industry, 

but over the last decade, oyster growers have struggled to maintain yields 

because the water in the hatcheries is becoming too acidic for oysters to survive. 

The oceans are becoming more acidic because they are absorbing more and 

more C02 from the atmosphere. The impact of this acidification on oyster farming 

has been documented in the scientific literature. On numerous occasions, you've 

expressed skepticism about climate change, but there is no doubt in the minds of 

these shellfish growers about the reality that increased C02 levels are threatening 

their livelihoods. As EPA Administrator, how would you address this issue? 

142 
882 

If confirmed, I will implement the laws that EPA is charged to administer. 

Under section 304 of the CWA EPA establishes water quality criteria to 

protect aquatic life, including shellfish. Certain EPA programs also include 

authorities that can support projects that may benefit the shellfish industry, 

including the National Estuary Program under section 320 of the CWA, the 

Long Island Sound programs under section 119 of the CWA, and the 

Chesapeake Bay program under section 117 of the CWA. Finally, section 

319 of the CWA can support programs and projects to reduce runoff that 

may impact oyster beds .. 

11. There are many groups within the Christian community-- and groups from 

other faiths-- in the United States who agree with the overwhelming scientific 

consensus that climate change is a danger to our country, and who strongly 

support taking action to mitigate the causes and impacts of climate change. For 

example, the Southern Baptist Convention made a statement in 2007 saying that 

Christians are responsible for caring for creation, and emphasized the importance 

of acting to prevent climate change. The President of the Southern Baptist 

Theological Seminary, has also issued a statement echoing these views. As EPA 

Administrator, would you share the view that, in the interest of caring for creation, 

that action should be taken to prevent climate change? 

I believe we can grow our economy, harvest the resources God has blessed 

us with, while also being good stewards of the air, land, and water by which 

we have been favored. If confirmed, I will work to advance the mission of 

EPA to protect human health and the environment within the framework 

established by Congress. 

12. The EPA is required to follow the best available science in its rule-making 

process. Given that every major scientific institution in the United States agrees 

with the position that the warming trend over the past century is due to human 

activity, do you have any reason to disagree with the position of every major 

scientific institution in the United States? Please explain. 

I agree EPA's rulemaking process must be based on the best available 

science. However, I have no first-hand knowledge of the specific institutions 

or findings referenced in the question. If confirmed, I commit EPA's 

rulemaking process will be based on the best available science and will 

follow applicable laws and federal guidance on scientific integrity, 

information, and transparency. 

143 
883 

13. 97% of publishing climate scientists support the idea the climate change is 

real and man-made. You are an attorney, but have questioned the reality of 

climate change. Do you currently agree that climate change is real and manmade? If not do you believe the 97% of climate scientists that do hold that view 

are wrong, or lying? 

The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of human 

activity on our changing climate, and what to do about it, are subject to 

continuing debate and dialogue. If confirmed, I will make sure the agency's 

regulatory actions are based on the most up to date and objective scientific 

data. 

14. What scientific organizations do you personally trust when it comes to the 

science of climate change? Please explain why you trust any organization(s) you 

list. 

If confirmed as EPA Administrator, I will adhere to the applicable statutory 

authorities to fulfill EPA's mission to protect human health and the 

environment and will base my decisions on sound science, including advice 

provided by agency experts and advisory personnel. 

15. Below is a list of statements from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change's Fifth Assessment Report. For each statement, please indicate your 

agreement or disagreement and explain your reasoning: • "Warming of the climate 

system is unequivocal." 

• "The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have 

diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have 

increased." 

• "The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide 

have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years." 

• "Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial 

times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use 

change emissions." 

• "The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon 

dioxide, causing ocean acidification." 

• "The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the 

atmospheric concentration of C02 since 1750." 

• "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the 

observed warming since the mid-2oth century." 

• "Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and 

changes in all components of the climate system." 

• "It is very likely that the Arctic sea ice cover will continue to shrink and thin and 

that Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover will decrease during the 21st century 

144 
884 

as global mean surface temperature rises. Global glacier volume will further 

decrease." 

• "Global mean sea level will continue to rise during the 21st century .... [T]he rate 

of sea level rise will very likely exceed that observed during 1971 to 2010 due to 

increased ocean warming and increased loss of mass from glaciers and ice 

sheets." 

• "Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of 

greenhouse gas emissions." 

There is a diverse range of views regarding the key drivers of our changing 

climate among scientists. I believe that these differences should be the 

subject of robust and open debate free from intimidation. If confirmed, I will 

continue to encourage an honest debate on our changing climate, the role 

of human activity, our ability to measure the degree and extent of human 

activity, and what to do about it. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any 

regulatory actions are based on the most up to date and objective scientific 

data. I will also adhere to the applicable statutory authorities to fulfill EPA's 

mission to protect human health and the environment consistent with the 

process and rule of law established by congress. 

16. Are you aware that each of the past three decades has been warmer than the 

one before, and warmer than all the previous decades since record keeping 

began in the 1880s? This trend is based on actual temperature measurements. 

Do you believe that there is uncertainty in this warming trend that has been 

directly measured? If so, please explain. 

I am aware of a diverse range of conclusions regarding global temperatures, 

including that over the past two decades satellite data indicates there has 

been a leveling off of warming, which some scientists refer to as the 

"hiatus." I am also aware that the discrepancy between land-based 

temperature stations and satellite temperature stations can be attributed to 

expansive urbanization within in our country where artificial substances 

such as asphalt can interfere with the accuracy of land-based temperature 

stations and that the agencies charged with keeping the data do not 

accurately account for this type of interference. I am also aware that 

'warmest year ever' claims from NASA and NOAA are based on minimal 

temperature differences that fall within the margin of error. Finally, I am 

aware that temperatures have been changing for millions of years that 

predate the relatively short modern record keeping efforts that began in 

1880. 

145 
885 

17. Is there a scientific basis, based on the best available science and the weight 

of scientific evidence, for revoking or revising the finding that greenhouse gases 

endanger public health and welfare? 

To my knowledge, there is nothing currently pending before the EPA that 

would require I take any additional actions on the Endangerment Finding on 

Greenhouse Gases and if there were, it would not be wise to prejudge the 

outcome. 

18. Last year, Oklahoma's Department of Environmental Quality added eight 

lakes to what is now a list of 40 lakes where people should limit their fish 

consumption due to the dangerous levels of mercury. Do you believe that coal 

fired power plants contributed to the mercury contamination in those 8 lakes? Do 

you believe coal fired power plants contribute to mercury contamination in the 

environment? 

I agree with the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality's 

determinations regarding fish advisories. As discussed elsewhere in my 

written responses to the Committee, coal fired power plants are the largest 

point source emitters of mercury into the air in the United States. I do not 

have direct knowledge of whether these fish advisories were caused by coal 

fired power plants or other sources, and if so whether those sources are 

located in the United States or elsewhere. 

19. Do you agree that fish consumption is a leading source of mercury exposure 

and that the source of mercury in fish comes largely from the burning of fossil 

fuels? If you disagree, please explain why, including citations of the authoritative 

bodies that support your position. 

I agree that fish consumption is a leading source of mercury exposure, 

particularly in certain subpopulations, such as unborn children. 

20. Do you agree with the American Academy of Pediatrics' finding on the 

importance of minimizing mercury exposures for child health? If you disagree, 

please explain why, including citations of the authoritative bodies that support 

your position. 

I agree with the American Academy of Pediatrics' finding. As I stated in my 

testimony before the Committee, mercury is appropriately regulated as a 

hazardous air pollutant under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. If I am 

146 
886 

confirmed as Administrator, I will regulate under Section 112 in a manner 

that is consistent with Congress's intent in enacting that provision. I will 

also faithfully administer other federal statutes that regulate mercury to the 

extent that they are under my jurisdiction, including the Mercury Export Ban 

Act of 2008, the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management 

Act of 1996, the Clean Water Act, the Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the 

Safe Drinking Water Act 

21. You are currently representing Oklahoma in challenging the EPA's 

supplemental finding that it is necessary and appropriate to regulate emissions of 

mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from power plants. Do you agree that 

nearly all covered facilities are already in compliance with EPA's Mercury and Air 

Taxies Standard? If not, explain why not. 

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standard has not been vacated by the Supreme 

Court or the D.C. Circuit and currently regulates both mercury and other air 

toxics. I do not have personal knowledge of whether any facilities are out of 

compliance with the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard. If I am confirmed as 

Administrator, I will exercise my authorities as Administrator to enforce 

all laws administered and regulations promulgated by the Administrator, 

including the Mercury and Air Taxies Standard, against sources that are out 

of compliance. 

22. Do you agree that ground-level ozone is a dangerous pollutant that causes 

respiratory and cardiovascular harm? If no, on what basis do you disagree? If you 

disagree, please explain why, including citations of the authoritative bodies that 

support your position. 

I agree that ground-level ozone is a dangerous pollutant that can cause 

respiratory and cardiovascular harm, 

23. You are currently pursuing a lawsuit against the EPA over the agency's new 

ozone limits, which the EPA is required to review at least every five years. The 

new limit is 70 parts per billion; the previous limit, set in 2008, was 75 parts per 

billion. Prior to the announcement of the new limit, officials at the Oklahoma 

Department of Environmental Quality said that the state would be able to meet the 

70 ppb level, however you have taken the position that EPA's standard is 

unachievable, and you have criticized the agency's data collection and its 

scientific processes. Could you please describe why you feel the EPA is 

unqualified to assess the safety and necessity of the new ozone levels? Could 

147 
887 

you please also describe why your state's Department of Environmental Quality 

was wrong to say that they could meet the new ozone safety levels? 

Oklahoma joined four other states in a petition for review of EPA's 2015 

decision to lower the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone from 

75 ppb to 70 ppb. The legal question raised by the state petitioners in the 

case is whether EPA set the standard at a level than can be achieved by 

states given the background concentrations and uncontrollable sources of 

ozone in many parts of the country. The briefs filed by the many State 

petitioners to that rule fully explain the States' position and speak for 

themselves. The case remains pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit. 

24. In a 2013 interview, you said: "The evidence is clear that the current ethanol 

fuel mandate is unworkable. The decision by the EPA to lower that standard is 

good news for Oklahoma consumers. It's good the Administration finally 

recognized the concerns of consumers and a variety of industries and took steps 

to correct this flawed program." Please explain what you meant by "unworkable" 

and "flawed program". Do you still hold this view? If not, what caused you to 

change your view? 

As I indicated during my nomination hearing, the Administrator and the EPA 

routinely missed the statutory targets in publishing the Renewable Volume 

Obligations each year, creating great uncertainty in the marketplace. In fact, 

in some years they missed the timeline, as far as submitting those targets, 

by over a year; in some cases over two years. The EPA failed to adhere to 

statutory requirements, resulting in a flawed and unworkable program. 

25. In December 2015, the President-elect said of Senator Ted Cruz' opposition to 

the RFS, " ... oil pays him a lot of money, he's got to be for oil, right? The oil 

companies give him a lot of money. So, but I'm with you. I'm with everybody. I'm 

with everybody. Look, I'm self-funding. I have no oil company. I have no special 

interest." In contrast, you have received over $300,000 from the fossil fuel 

industry, and have sent at least one letter to EPA on your own letter head that 

was drafted by the oil industry. If you are confirmed as EPA Administrator, will you 

commit to ensuring that your previous donors will not exert undue influence over 

the regulatory process and your decision-making at EPA with regard to the 

Renewable Fuels Standard? 

If confirmed, I will work to administer the RFS in accordance with statute 

and Congressional intent. 

148 
888 

26. If the Sixth Circuit and the Supreme Court approve EPA's "Waters of the 

United States" rule defining the jurisdictional extent of the Clean Water Act, would 

you direct the EPA to amend that rule? If so, how? If the courts invalidate EPA's 

"Waters of the United States" rule, how would you direct the EPA to define which 

waterways and wetlands are protected by the Clean Water Act? 

If I am confirmed, I will seek to make changes to the WOTUS rule following 

all appropriate administrative procedures, including the requirements of 

notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act. 

27. In your opinion, under what circumstances should the Clean Water Act apply 

to pollution being discharged into groundwater? If the Ninth Circuit's forthcoming 

decision in Hawai'i Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui conflicts with your view, would 

you direct the EPA to write a new regulation overruling the 9th Circuit? 

I believe that the Clean Water Act applies only to discharges to surface 

water, not groundwater. In contrast, the Safe Drinking Water Act requires 

permits for underground injection into certain aquifers. I cannot speculate 

on a judicial decision that has not been issued. 

28. You've taken money from Monsanto, one the world's largest sellers of 

pesticides, in your previous electoral campaigns. How will you ensure that the 

safety of pesticides is vetted and regulated by the EPA according to the best 

science on risk and potential harm, rather than the profit-making interests of your 

campaign financiers? In your role as EPA administrator, how will ensure the 

agency is not unduly influenced by the political power of these large corporations? 

If confirmed as Administrator, I would expect EPA's regulatory process 

relating to pesticides to be open and transparent and based on sound 

science in accordance with EPA's legal authorities. 

29. What will you do to ensure EPA is conducting a transparent process regarding 

pesticide regulation? Please specify how you will approach notifying the public 

regarding pesticides in terms of notice of actions, publication of information 

(including studies and data) in the dockets, or timely responses to requests under 

the Freedom of Information Act. If you do not believe in a transparent process, 

why not? 

I am committed to transparency at EPA. I commit to making sure that EPA 

data is made available to the public consistent with applicable privacy and 

149 
889 

confidentiality laws, and I will work to ensure that EPA uses a variety of 

tools and methods to keep the public informed about EPA activities as they 

relate to pesticide regulation if I am confirmed. 

30. What will you do to work with pesticide manufacturers, distributors, 

conservation organizations, farmers, and beekeepers to ensure pesticide labels 

are clear and enforceable? Will you commit to enforcing these labels? If you will 

not work on this issue, why not? 

If confirmed as Administrator, I would expect EPA's regulatory process 

relating to pesticides to be open and transparent and based on sound 

science in accordance with EPA's legal authorities. 

31. EPA defines environmental justice as "the fair treatment and meaningful 

involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with 

respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental 

laws, regulations, and policies." Would you as EPA administrator advance the 

goal of environmental justice and if so, how? 

If confirmed, I would work to faithfully execute the laws EPA is responsible 

for administering in order to protect human health and the environment for 

all Americans. As I testified, the Administrator plays an important role in 

regarding environmental justice. 

32. Exposure to air toxicity, water pollution, lead, and hazardous waste sites 

results in disproportionate levels of disease, disability, and mortality amongst 

communities of color. As Administrator, what will you do to protect America's most 

vulnerable and underrepresented communities from environmental hazards and 

reduce the burden of toxicity shouldered by these communities? 

As I testified, the Administrator plays an important role in regarding 

environmental justice. If confirmed, I would work to faithfully execute the 

laws EPA is responsible for administering in order to protect human health 

and the environment for all Americans. If confirmed, I would expect EPA to 

operate in an open and transparent manner, consider the views of 

stakeholders as appropriate, act based on sound science, and follow the 

laws as established by Congress 

33. President-Elect Trump has stated that the drinking water crisis in Flint, 

Michigan, would never have happened if he was president. If appointed, what 

150 
890 

measures do you plan to take to protect drinking water across the country and 

particularly for the most vulnerable populations? 

If confirmed, I will return EPA's focus to carrying out its core missions, 

including, as appropriate, use of EPA's emergency order authority under the 

Safe Drinking Water Act. 

34. Oklahoma has seen a massive increase in earthquakes recently (907 

(>magnitude 3.0) in 2016 and 585 in 2015 -which is more than the previous 35 

years combined). The Oklahoma Geological Survey released a report in 2015 

linking the disposal of tracking wastewater with earthquakes in Oklahoma. As 

recently as November 2016, a 5.0 magnitude earthquake struck Cushing, 

Oklahoma. Forty to fifty buildings were reported to have been damaged; Governor 

Mary Fallin felt the damage was substantial enough to declare a state of 

emergency for Payne County, where Cushing is located (a first step towards 

being granted federal aid). • What was the incidence of earthquakes in Oklahoma 

prior to widespread use of hydraulic fracturing in the past decade? 

• What has been the incidence of earthquakes in Oklahoma in the past 10 years, 

since widespread use of hydraulic fracturing? 

• What have been the economic and health impacts of earthquakes in Oklahoma 

in the past 1 0 years? 

• What was your rationale for not using the office of the Attorney General to 

change the disposal practices of wastewater from hydraulic fracturing to protect 

the citizens of Oklahoma? 

As I discussed at my confirmation hearing, the State of Oklahoma has taken 

seismicity issues very seriously and has taken proactive and aggressive 

actions. Oklahoma, as have other states, been successfully regulating 

hydraulic fracturing since the 40's and 50's. State and federal geologists 

have largely confirmed that the while the act of hydraulic fracturing itself 

poses little seismicity risk, the underground injection of wastewater at 

certain pressures and volumes can result in some seismic activity. While 

earthquakes have increased in frequency in recent years, the State has 

taken aggressive actions and reports have indicated the rate of seismic 

events has recently declined. Seismic activity can of course have significant 

impacts on communities and the activities linked to seismicity concerns in 

Oklahoma are regulated under state law by other agencies that my office 

works with as appropriate under Oklahoma law. 

35. The EPA is the front line agency serving or assisting Indian Country with 

environmental protection and recognition of treaty rights. As EPA Administrator, 

would the you commit to the protection of tribal treaty rights in agency decision 

making processes in situations where rights may be affected by EPA actions 

151 
891 

including federal approval of: • state water quality standards (CWA) 

• state 401 water quality certifications 

• state distribution and use of pesticides (FIFRA) 

• oil spill program countermeasures (SPCC)? 

If confirmed, I will commit to ensuring that the United States meets all treaty 

obligations that it has pursuant to treaties with Indian Tribes. 

36. Will you support current efforts to establish federal baseline water quality 

standards for Indian Reservations that do not currently have Clean Water Act 

standards in place? Please explain why or why not. An advanced notice of 

proposed rulemaking on this initiative was published in the Federal Register on 

September 29, 2016. 

Because an advance notice of proposed rulemaking has been published, 

this matter will come before me for decision if I am confirmed as 

Administrator. Thus, I will not prejudge the outcome, but rather will commit 

to fairly evaluating the matter and reaching a sound decision. 

37. The 2016 Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act 

(TSCA) requires the EPA Administrator to identify "potentially exposed or 

susceptible subpopulations" in chemical assessments to ensure their protection. 

Tribal and local populations in the Pacific Northwest consume high quantities of 

fish that can result in greater exposure to chemical contaminants. How will the 

new Administration implement TSCA reform to ensure that tribes and vulnerable 

populations unique to individual states are protected by federal rules on toxic 

substances? 

The Lautenberg Act defined the term "potentially exposed or susceptible 

subpopulations" as "a group of individuals within the general population 

identified by the Administrator who, due to either greater susceptibility or 

greater exposure, may be at greater risk than the general population of 

adverse health effects from exposure to a chemical substance or mixture, 

such as infants, children, pregnant women, workers, or the elderly." 

Protecting citizens that are either more susceptible or who have greater 

exposure to a substance is an important aspect of the law and I will take 

great care to ensure the Act is faithfully executed if I am confirmed. 

38. Will you commit to continue EPA's Treaty Rights Guidance and that initiative's 

implementation? Will you commit to continue EPA's Policy on Consultation and 

Coordination with Tribes? 

152 
892 

If confirmed as Administrator, I will evaluate all guidance documents and 

policies to ensure that they represent faithful execution of the duties 

imposed on me, and powers granted to me, by Congress. If the guidance 

and policy you referenced, I will keep them in place. 

39. The 2014 U.S. National Climate Assessment concludes that climate change 

will impact every community in the United States, and that low-income 

communities and communities of color will be the hardest hit. These vulnerable 

communities will feel the impacts of climate change more severely due to lower 

quality housing, which is often less equipped to safely weather severe storms, 

severe heat, and freezing temperatures. How will you work to reduce climate 

change risks in low-income communities and communities of color? 

I believe environmental justice for low-income and minority communities is 

an important role of the EPA Administrator. If confirmed, I will adhere to the 

applicable statutory authorities to fulfill EPA's mission to protect human 

health and the environment for all of our nation's citizens. 

40. I understand that there are two political action committees affiliated with you. 

A spokesperson has made the statement that both PACs will be closed by the end 

of the month. Can you confirm that that both PACs will be closed by then? 

I do not control either of the political action committees to which you refer, 

and thus cannot confirm their intentions. As you have heard, however, I 

have also heard that both entities have announced that they will wind down 

their activities. 

41. It has also been reported that a 501 (c)(4) organization called Protecting 

America Now has been created to raise funds to support your confirmation. If you 

are confirmed, will you make sure that Protecting American Now is disbanded? 

Please provide a list of Protecting America Now's donors. 

I am not affiliated in any way with "Protecting America Now," and thus have 

no ability to disband the organization. For the same reason, I have no 

knowledge of the group's donors. 

42. When is it appropriate for the Federal government to regulate pollution rather 

than states? 

153 
893 

Many federal environmental statutes were designed with the idea that the 

states would be the principal implementer. I believe it is essential to begin 

with that model. There are instances where the federal government 

approves or disapproves state programs or issues implementation plans in 

lieu of the state involved. However, this should be the vast exception to the 

rule. Some environmental statutes like CERCLA place the principal 

responsibility with the federal government for the important remediation 

activities under that statute. However, even with statutes like CERCLA, EPA 

still have an obligation with work with states and localities in designating 

sites which need remediation and most importantly in developing 

remediation plans. 

43. Do you personally disagree with any existing Federal environmental law, or 

any provisions of any existing Federal environmental laws? If so, please explain 

which and why. 

If confirmed, I will faithfully execute the laws as enacted by Congress. 

44. Which EPA regulations do you believe should instead be left to states to 

implement, and why? 

I believe federal environmental statutes are designed with states as a 

primary implementer. Environmental statutes envision that states have the 

delegated enforcement and primacy to implement and enforce 

environmental statutes. Only when that is not happening or when 

negotiations between and among states breakdown should EPA determine a 

dispute and only after attempting to assist states negotiate a local solution. 

I am fond of saying that we need national standards and neighborhood 

solutions. I think that should shape the work of the EPA. 

45. When states or local governments regulate pollution with different sets of 

standards, various industry groups have raised the concern that it creates a 

patchwork of regulatory policies that make compliance difficult. Do you share this 

concern, and why? 

As I testified in the hearing, I have pursued opportunities to address 

interstate environmental quality matters. One of the examples I have 

highlighted is the work that Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel and 

I took to address an enforceable water quality standard between Arkansas 

and Oklahoma. I have also discussed how Texas should be responsible 

when air quality issues affect Oklahoma and my experience with that. When 

154 
894 

negotiations among and between states breakdown EPA has a role to set 

environmental standards. However, that is should be a last course of action 

instead of the first. I believe environmental statutes are designed with 

states as a primary implementer. Environmental statutes envision that 

states have the delegated enforcement and primacy to implement and 

enforce environmental statutes. Only when that is not happening or when 

negotiations between and among states breakdown should EPA determine a 

dispute and only after attempting to assist states negotiate a local solution. 

I am fond of saying that we need national standards and neighborhood 

solutions. I think that should shape the work of the EPA. 

46. Do you believe that the Renewable Fuel Standard is an appropriate regulatory 

role for the EPA versus states? 

Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act provides the Administrator of the EPA 

with the authority and responsibility to administer the RFS program. If 

confirmed, I will work to administer the RFS in accordance with statute and 

Congressional intent. 

47. Do you agree that there should be national fuel economy standards to reduce 

tailpipe pollution from cars and make vehicles more fuel efficient? Please explain. 

While the EPA regulates emissions under the Clean Air Act, it is true that 

Congress vested authority to regulate fuel economy through the Corporate 

Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards" framework set forth originally in 

the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Congress vested responsibility for 

the CAFE program in the Department of Transportation, not the EPA; 

accordingly, I take no position on Congress's policy decision on this 

subject. 

48. Do you support California's authority under the Clean Air Act to receive a 

waiver from the EPA to set emissions standards for vehicles that are stronger 

than EPA standards? 

In the Clean Air Act, Congress provided that the EPA Administrator may 

waive the Clean Air Act's preemptive effect over some of California's state 

air quality standards for mobile sources, when certain specific statutory 

criteria are met. If confirmed as EPA Administrator, I will administer this 

program in accordance with Congress's objectives, on a case-by-case basis 

in accordance with the law and with the administrative record in any given 

case, upon proper petition by California. 

155 
895 

49. You are currently representing Oklahoma as one of 13 petitioners challenging 

EPA's standards limiting conventional, toxic, and greenhouse gas pollutants from 

new oil and gas facilities. Please describe how Oklahoma would prefer to handle 

these pollutants in the absence of EPA regulation. If your proposed pollution 

standards are more lax than the EPA's standards, please provide information 

supporting the why your standards are preferable from a public health standpoint. 

As Attorney General, I sought to ensure that the Oklahoma Legislature 

retained its power to make policy for Oklahoma. Policymaking is the 

province of the legislature. Thus, I have no opinion with regard to what 

environmental policy might be appropriate. 

50. Please also describe, and provide the same information, for what Oklahoma's 

policies would be should Oklahoma and its fellow petitioners be successful in 

challenging the EPA's implementation of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. 

As my testimony indicates, I firmly believe that the EPA plays an important 

role in addressing interstate air quality issues, but it must do so within the 

bounds of its legal authority and justified by a record of support. The 

actions undertaken by the Office of Attorney General challenging certain 

EPA regulations have been because EPA exceeded it legal authorities as 

established by Congress and interpreted by the courts. The Department of 

Environmental Quality is responsible for implementing and enforcing 

environmental laws in Oklahoma. 

51. You also represent Oklahoma as a petitioner in ongoing litigation against the 

EPA's 111 (b) standards for C02 emissions for new, modified, and reconstructed 

power plants. Should you win your suit, will Oklahoma take any steps to regulate 

power plant C02 emissions, or does the state plan to continue not regulating C02 

emissions? 

I will not prejudge the outcome of any rule that is the subject of ongoing 

litigation if I am confirmed. 

52. As Attorney General, your role was also to prosecute environmental cases 

within Oklahoma. Please list all environmental cases you have originated as 

Oklahoma's Attorney General, and provide all documents related to those cases 

and a summary of the outcomes of those cases. 

156 
896 

Please see the list of cases attached to this response. 

53. The Environmental Protection Unit was eliminated as a group within the 

Attorney General's office once you became Attorney General. This appears to 

indicate a decrease in support, or at least priority, for pursuing environmental 

cases within your office compared to your predecessor. To clarify if you have 

continued to pursue environmental cases as Oklahoma Attorney General, please 

provide description and documentation of all the environmental cases that were 

handled by your office versus the AG's office during Drew Edmondson's tenure. 

Please also describe the work your office did on any environmental cases that 

were begun during your predecessor's tenure but were continued or completed by 

your office. 

My office continues to employ attorneys vested with responsibilities related 

to environmental protection, including the attorney who served as the lead 

attorney on the previous attorney general's "environmental protection unit." 

That attorney's responsibilities remain unchanged (he has been promoted, 

in fact), and he pursues exactly the kind of cases that he pursued under the 

previous attorney general. The only thing that changed was the internal 

organization of the attorneys vested with those responsibilities, because I 

concluded (consistent with the practices of every attorney general in the 

State's history but for my immediate predecessor) that it was not 

operationally efficient to have a separate unit for such work. Thus, I chose 

to house that work in the Office's Public Protection Unit and then later in the 

Solicitor General's Unit. As I explained in my testimony to the committee, 

my office continues to pursue environmental cases. I do not possess lists of 

cases pursued my predecessor so I cannot provide the comparative that 

you request. I am aware that many environmental cases take many, many 

years to litigate to completion, so some of the actions that my Office 

continues to pursue were initiated prior to my taking office. Please see 

attached list of cases. 

54. As part of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act of 

2016, Congress passed the Columbia River Restoration Act, a program which 

gives the EPA authority to create a competitive grant program to address 

environmental cleanup and restoration in the Columbia River Basin. This program 

empowers states and local communities to better coordinate and implement local 

cleanup and restoration efforts. Will you, as EPA administrator, work to advance 

and implement this bipartisan effort to empower local entities and states? 

While I am not familiar with the Columbia River Basin restoration program, 1 

support collaborative efforts and neighborhood solutions. I also respect 

157 
897 

Congressional authorizations. If confirmed, I will ask the EPA staff to brief 

me on this program and the new authority granted by Congress. 

55. In January, 2017, the EPA announced $17 million in credit assistance for the 

Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA). This program, initially 

passed into law as part of the 2014 WRDA bill, now has the funding needed to 

allow EPA to make approximately $1 billion in loans and leverage a total $2 billion 

in total water-infrastructure investment. As you mentioned in your hearing, water 

infrastructure is critically needed, but often overlooked. Will you, as EPA 

administrator, work to ensure adequate resources to implement the WIFIA loan 

program, and seek further funding and assistance for other water infrastructure 

programs and initiatives, such as the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund? 

Yes, if confirmed. 

56. The Federal Government has a long history of activities within Portland 

Harbor, which in 2000 was designated a Superfund site and is now one of the 

largest and most complex Superfund sites in the country. The history of Federal 

activities within the Superfund site includes ship building, repairing, and 

dismantling, as well as a variety other activities that likely led to some amount of 

contamination of the river. Today, the Willamette river sediment within the 

Portland Harbor Superfund site is contaminated with compounds associated with 

the activities carried out by the Federal government over the course of many 

decades. Now that the Environmental Protection Agency has issued its final 

Record of Decision for this Superfund site, there will be a process to divide up 

cleanup responsibilities among parties responsible for the contamination. Can you 

commit to work with the appropriate Federal agencies, such as the Department of 

Defense and Department of Justice, to ensure that the Federal government 

engages proactively with relevant stakeholders during the allocation process, 

takes ownership for its share of the contamination, and pays its fair share of the 

cleanup? 

I am not familiar with the details of the remedy that has been selected for 

the Portland Harbor Superfund site. If confirmed, I expect to make clean up 

of contaminated sites one of my priorities and would be interested in 

hearing the views of the Congressional Delegation and other stakeholders 

on the issues raised by this cleanup plan. 

Senator Sanders: 

!58 
898 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approximately 15,000 

employees. The following questions ask how you, as Administrator, would treat 

civil servants and make human resource decisions. 

1.Do you support--and promise to uphold--the merit system principles set forth in 

Chapter 23 Title 5 U.S. Code, which prohibit factors other than merit from 

consideration in civil service employment decisions? 

If confirmed, I commit to implementing the law as enacted by Congress. 

2.As Administrator, do you support use of the Holman Rule, which allows any 

member of Congress to propose amending an appropriations bill to single out a 

government employee or cut a specific program? Will you support Congress in 

passing an amendment under the Holman Rule? 

If confirmed as Administrator, I would implement the law and work with the 

Agency in accordance with the laws passed by Congress. 

3.1s retention and recruitment of a high quality scientific workforce at EPA a 

priority for you? 

Yes. 

4.As Administrator, do you believe that you will be better able to recruit and retain 

top talent at the EPA under conditions where Congress is able to individually 

target employees based on political considerations? 

If confirmed as Administrator, I would implement the law and work with the 

Agency in accordance with the laws passed by Congress. 

5.As Administrator, do you support Congress targeting and altering the salaries of 

individuals within the EPA? 

If confirmed as Administrator, I would implement the law and work with the 

Agency in accordance with the laws passed by Congress. 

159 
899 

6.As Administrator, how will you generally view the division of responsibility and 

authority between Congress and your Department on personnel issues? 

In my view, Congress passes the laws governing executive branch 

personnel. 

On June 14 2016, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy signed an order on 

"Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Employees" (http://src.bna.com/fOT) 

and said at the time that it "reinforces that discrimination of any kind in the EPA 

workplace is unacceptable, including discrimination on the basis of gender 

identity, expression or perceived non-conformity." Among other things, the order 

states that an "employee should be permitted to use the [sanitary and related] 

facilities that correspond with their gender identity." This is in stark contrast to the 

suit you filed with 10 other attorneys general challenging the guidance issued 

under President Obama on accommodating transgender students in public 

schools. 

7. Will you as EPA Administrator ensure that Administrator McCarthy's order is 

vigorously implemented, and continue to ensure that transgender and gender 

non-conforming employees are not discriminated against on the basis of their 

gender-identities? 

If confirmed, I commit to protecting the rights of all EPA employees and will 

follow the law. 

As Attorney General, you disbanded your office's Environmental Protection Unit 

and reduced your office's funding for environmental law to zero. 

8. In your personal opinion, what are the most pressing air and water quality 

challenges that deserve the attention of the EPA? What would you do at the EPA 

to better address these challenges, if anything? 

As discussed, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality -- not the 

Office of Attorney General --has primary responsibility for implementing 

and enforcing environmental laws in Oklahoma. Consistent with the practice 

of every Attorney General save one, I determined that a standalone unit was 

operationally inefficient. I opted to combine the Environmental Protection 

Unit and the Consumer Protection Unit into a single unit called the "Public 

Protection Unit." The Public Protection Unit continued the work of the 

Environmental Protection Unit, and that work continues to this day, headed 

by the very same attorney who worked in the Environmental Protection Unit 

under the prior Attorney General. As discussed, I believe EPA plays an 

160 
900 

important role in addressing cross-state pollution, and if confirmed, I would 

expect to work cooperatively with states to address the problems of 

environmental pollution. 

The Keystone Sanitary Landfill (KSL) is an existing 714-acre landfill located in the 

boroughs of Dunmore and Throop, Pennsylvania. KSL has submitted an 

application to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for 

a permit modification to expand the facility's disposal capacity by approximately 

145 million cubic yards. The permitting and approval of this process is strictly 

under the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania DEP. 

Under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, states 

play a lead role in ensuring the federal criteria for operating municipal solid waste 

and industrial waste landfills regulations are met, and they may set more stringent 

requirements. Under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, EPA 

was authorized to determine the adequacy of the state permit programs. In the 

absence of an approved state program, the federal requirements must be met by 

waste facilities. 

9.Are you committed to maintaining the process to determine the adequacy of a 

state's municipal solid waste management plan as required under the Hazardous 

and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984? 

If confirmed, I commit to faithfully executing the laws I would be responsible 

for administering as EPA Administrator. 

10.Further, if a state does not have an approved state program, are you 

committed to inspecting and enforcing federal requirements including the 

prohibition on open dumping? 

If confirmed, I commit to faithfully executing the laws I would be 

responsible for administering as EPA Administrator. 

11.Constituents have expressed concerns regarding the potential impact on the 

environment, quality of life, health and traffic congestion as a result of the 

Keystone Sanitary Landfill. How do you intend to work collaboratively with states 

in the event that a state violates the federal Clean Water Act or the Safe Drinking 

Water Act or a state requests assistance from EPA? 

161 
901 

I believe states play an important role in administering environmental laws 

such as the Clean Water Act, and if confirmed, I would expect to work 

cooperatively with states toward our shared goal of protecting human 

health and the environment consistent with EPA's legal authorities. 

During your hearing, you stated that climate change was not a hoax, but you also 

were reluctant to discuss your views on the causes of climate change. You stated 

that your personal views were not relevant. However, as Attorney General, you 

challenged EPA's 2009 finding that greenhouse gases, including those from fossil 

fuels, endanger public health and welfare, due to anthropogenic climate change. 

The EPA went through an exhaustive scientific review and public comment 

process prior to issuing the Endangerment Finding, but in the lawsuit you labeled 

it "arbitrary and capricious." The Endangerment Finding references more than 100 

published scientific studies and reports by the U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program/U.S. Global Change Research Program, the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council of the U.S. National 

Academy of Sciences. 

12.As Administrator, will you recognize the findings of the U.S. Climate Change 

Science Program/U.S. Global Change Research Program and the National 

Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences on the science of 

climate change, including its anthropogenic causes? 

If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any regulatory actions are based on 

the most up to date and objective scientific data, including the ever-evolving 

understanding of the impact increasing greenhouse gases have on our 

changing climate. 

In 2014, the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics and the University of 

Vermont released the Vermont Climate Assessment report. The report found that 

many of our state's communities have already been highly impacted by climatic 

changes and are engaged in processes to respond to these transitions. Some 

populations and regions of the state are particularly vulnerable, including rural 

areas and those increasingly exposed to extreme weather events. Flooding, such 

as experienced under Tropical Storm Irene, has been devastating to some of our 

state's communities. EPA partnered with Vermont in incorporating smart growth 

policies to increase flood resilience after the tropical storm. Under direction from 

Executive Order 13653, Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate 

Change, EPA and New England's EPA Region 1 both have developed climate 

adaptation plans that assist our region in preparing for these changes. 

162 
902 

13.Will you support EPA's continued climate adaptation planning and 

implementation in accordance with Executive Order 13653? 

If confirmed, I will work to ensure the agency complies with and operates 

according to all applicable Executive Orders. 

14.Do you support the Paris Climate Agreement? 

The role of the United States in the Paris Agreement is a State Department 

matter. If confirmed, I will work to advance the mission of the EPA, which is 

to protect human health and the environment, consistent with the State 

Department's strategy for international engagement on climate change. 

15.What are your plans for implementing the Paris Climate Agreement? 

Should the government decide to continue to participate in the Paris 

Agreement and if I am confirmed as Administrator, I will collaborate with all 

involved agencies to ensure that commitments made on behalf of the United 

States are achievable and consistent with requisite legal authorities 

delegated by Congress. 

You have written that the climate change" ... debate is far from settled. Scientists 

continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its 

connection to the actions of mankind." 

16.What would it take for you to admit that all three of these allegations are 

incorrect? 

If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any regulatory actions are based on 

the most up to date and objective scientific data, including the ever-evolving 

understanding of the impact increasing greenhouse gases have on our 

changing climate. 

17.Which scientists, saying what, would change your mind? 

If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any regulatory actions are based on 

the most up to date and objective scientific data, including the ever-evolving 

163 
903 

understanding of the impact increasing greenhouse gases have on our 

changing climate. 

18.1f Harold Hamm told you he was no longer a climate change denier, would you 

believe him? 

I do not believe he is a climate change "denier." 

19.President Elect Trump's Secretary of State nominee, Rex Tillerson, is no 

longer a climate change denier. Why do you disagree with Tillerson? 

There is a diverse range of views regarding the key drivers of our changing 

climate among scientists, policy-makers and President Trump's nominees. I 

believe that these differences should be the subject of robust and open 

debate free from intimidation. If confirmed, I will continue to encourage an 

honest debate on our changing climate, the role of human activity, our 

ability to measure the degree and extent of human activity, and what to do 

about it. 

The Clean Air Act, and its amendments, sets limits on harmful pollutants like 

mercury and sulfur dioxide. As Oklahoma's Attorney General, you have 

repeatedly brought lawsuits against the EPA for their enforcement of the Clean Air 

Act, stating that the federal government has overstepped its authority to regulate 

and that these decisions are best left to the states. Pollution, like mercury and 

sulfur dioxide, from Midwest coal-fired power plants is blown right into New 

England. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that bio-accumulates in the fish in our 

streams and lakes, and places our pregnant women and young children at 

particular health risk. Sulfur dioxide contributes to acid rain that that harms the 

forests and waters of New England. 

20.1f you do not believe that the EPA should have the regulatory authority that 

would protect states such as Vermont from interstate pollution, that leaves these 

science and public health decisions to the courts. Can you explain why federal 

courts should be in the position of determining safe levels of pollution to protect 

the health and welfare of Vermonters, as opposed to the federal agency who 

mission it is to protect human health and the environment-- air, water, and land? 

As I stated in my testimony before the Committee, I agree that the Clean Air 

Act gives EPA an important role in addressing interstate pollution issues, 

among many other things. If I am confirmed as Administrator, I will exercise 

164 
904 

my authority in this area consistent with Congress's intent in enacting the 

Act. 

Data shows that mercury pollution in the North Atlantic and mercury 

concentrations in our fisheries have fallen dramatically since the United States 

started requiring stronger emission controls from coal power plants. 

21.Given this scientific confirmation of these regulations working how can you 

assure us that if you are confirmed to lead the EPA you will continue to accelerate 

the clean-up of all sources of mercury emissions, including coal power plants? 

I agree that there has been a consistent downward trend in mercury 

concentrations, but note that this trend began well before EPA promulgated 

the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. As I stated in my testimony before 

the Committee, mercury is appropriately regulated as a hazardous air 

pollutant under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. If I am confirmed as 

Administrator, I will regulate under Section 112 in a manner that is 

consistent with Congress's intent in enacting that provision. I will also 

faithfully administer other federal statutes that regulate mercury to the 

extent that they are under my jurisdiction, including the Mercury Export Ban 

Act of 2008, the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management 

Act of 1996, the Clean Water Act, the Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the 

Safe Drinking Water Act. 

It is widely reported that EPA's Clean Power Plan (CPP) will be one of the first 

policies to be dropped under the new administration. 

22.Do you envision that you will seek to replace the CPP with some other 

program that also would promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions 

nationally? 

While I will not prejudge the outcome of any Rule that is the subject of 

ongoing litigation, if confirmed, I will work to achieve the objectives of EPAadministered laws consistent with the process and rule of law set out by 

Congress. 

23.According to the EPA, "The Clean Power Plan will lead to climate and health 

benefits worth an estimated $55 billion to $93 billion in 2030, including avoiding 

2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in 

165 
905 

children." What do you say to parents who have children with asthma who are 

worried that the dismantling of the CPP? 

If confirmed, I will administer environmental laws that protect human health 

and the environment within the framework established by Congress. I will 

follow explicit cost-benefit obligations to ensure the benefits are associated 

with the pollutant being regulated and the costs are reflective of market 

realities. 

President-elect Trump has stated that the water poisoning that happened in Flint 

Michigan "would never have happened if I were president." More than 1 ,000 

communities have lead poisoning levels higher than those found in Flint Michigan. 

24.1f you were head of EPA what actions would you take to ensure that every 

community has clean water to drink? 

If confirmed, I will focus on EPA's core missions, including, as appropriate, 

use of EPA's emergency order authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

I also will implement the newly revised TSCA statute to address chemicals 

and will continue implementation of monitoring, review, and regulation of 

contaminants under the SDWA. 

25. What federal financial commitments would you need and what changes in 

environmental laws, policies and regulations would you need to ensure that a 

Flint-like situation never happens again? 

It is my understanding that some requirements in the Safe Drinking Water 

Act Lead and Copper Rule relating to monitoring and when corrosion 

control treatment is mandated are ambiguous and need to be clarified to 

make both compliance and enforcement easier and prevent a Flint-like 

situation from happening again. If confirmed, I will ensure that the revisions 

to that rule proceed expeditiously. As to resources, I will return EPA's 

focus, including resources, to carrying out its core missions. In addition, I 

believe that the new WIFIA program offers significant opportunities to 

leverage additional infrastructure investments. 

Lake Champlain is one of Vermont's most treasured environmental features. 

Tourism and property values are tied to the health of the lake-keeping its waters 

swimmable, fishable and drinkable. Run-off-including from lawns, paved roads 

and parking lots, and farmlands-contributes to high levels of phosphorus that 

spur algae growth. The algae turns the lake green and can be toxic. In 2016, 

EPA released new phosphorus limits for the lake by establishing a TMDL (Total 

166 
906 

Maximum Daily Load). We are concerned that you, as Attorney General, have 

opposed other clean-ups similar to that of Lake Champlain. You signed an amicus 

brief opposing EPA's clean-up of the Chesapeake Bay under the Clean Water 

Act 

26.As Administrator, will you continue the agency's support for the clean-up of 

Lake Champlain through these new TMDLs? 

A TMDL under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act does not establish a 

water quality standard. It is a tool for achieving a water quality standard by 

determining how much of a particular pollutant, like phosphorus, that a 

body of water can assimilate and achieve the water quality standard. EPA 

recently issued new phosphorus TMDLs for Lake Champlain to implement 

Vermont's water quality standards. These replace a prior TMDL that EPA 

had approved in 2002 and then disapproved 9 years later after being sued 

by the Conservation Law Foundation. I am not familiar with the details of 

either the original Vermont TMDL that EPA approved or the new TMDLs that 

EPA developed after being sued. I believe TMDLs can only be successful if 

developed in a collaborative fashion. It is my hope that the new Lake 

Champlain TMDLs were developed in such a fashion and in accordance with 

the law. If so, I am not aware of any reason that I would not support their 

implementation, if confirmed as EPA's administrator. 

27.Specifically, should Vermont fail to make satisfactory progress toward meeting 

the TMDL, would you support EPA's prior pledge to ramp up federal oversight of 

Vermont programs and crack down on pollution from wastewater treatment 

facilities? If not, how will you ensure Clean Water Act obligations are satisfied? 

Under Clean Water Act regulations (40 CFR 122.44), limits in a NPDES 

permit for a point source must be consistent with any waste load allocation 

for the discharge set forth in a TMDL and once these limits are part of a 

permit, they are federally enforceable. Vermont is authorized to carry out its 

own permitting program in lieu of the federal permitting program. If 

confirmed, I will work with the State of Vermont to see that the requirements 

of the Clean Water Act are met. 

The EPA works with other state and federal agencies in developing contingency 

plans in the event of an oil spill. These plans identify and coordinate the activities 

of the different government agencies and private organizations involved in the 

response. Vermonters are concerned about the potential for oil spills, particularly 

from rail accidents, that might adversely affect the state's waters. We view the 

EPA as a critical partner in developing plans for, and responding to, the case of 

an oil spill with potential impacts to a water body or other area subject to the 

167 
907 

jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). 

28.Do you as Administrator commit to the EPA's partnership with the states in 

developing plans for, and responding to, the case of an oil spill that affects waters 

under its jurisdiction, such as Lake Champlain? 

EPA, in partnership with other federal agencies on the National Response 

Team, has a significant role in carrying out the National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. EPA is the lead agency for 

responses under the Oil Pollution Act to spills into inland waters (other than 

the Great Lakes) and the Coast Guard is the lead agency for coastal waters 

and the Great Lakes). If confirmed, I will support EPA's continued 

implementation of the oil spill response authorities given to it by Congress. 

At EPA, science provides the foundation for Agency policies, actions, and 

decisions made on behalf of the American people. 

29.What should be the role of science in the development of EPA policies, rules, 

and regulations? 

I fully believe, as former EPA administrators have stated, that science must 

serve as "the backbone" of EPA actions. 

U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell has observed that "consumer spending 

for outdoor recreation is greater than household utilities and pharmaceuticals 

combined - and yet the federal government has never fully recognized or 

quantified these benefits." Outdoor recreation is not just an issue of concern to the 

Department of the Interior, it depends on clean air and water, which are under the 

purview of the EPA. The health and welfare of Americans is dependent on their 

ability to be actively engaged outdoors, breathing clean air and drinking clean 

water. 

30.1f under your watch, the EPA seeks to reduce regulations, will you take into 

account the economic losses from recreation to places like Vermont before doing 

so? 

As I indicated in my testimony, if confirmed, my primary goal would be to 

protect the American people through lawful regulations. I understand 

environmental statutes, such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, 

168 
908 

prescribe in certain instances that the EPA consider economic impacts in 

the rulemaking process. If confirmed, I commit to fully follow the law as 

provided by Congress. 

Much of the nation's and the world's attention has been focused in recent months 

on the Dakota Access Pipeline, the construction of which crosses multiple states. 

Many pipelines on Indian lands are located entirely within a single state, however. 

Here EPA is not always the primary regulator, and state laws do not always apply. 

The health and environmental consequences of pipeline failures, however, can be 

enormous. 

31.Will you commit to work with this Committee and other agencies to address the 

environmental and public health and safety issues associated with the operation 

of pipelines on Indian lands, including purely intrastate pipeline facilities? 

If confirmed, I will faithfully execute all applicable laws as Administrator. As 

was discussed at my confirmation hearing I have worked successfully with 

Oklahoma Tribes and I would use my role to address environmental and 

public health and safety issues on state, federal, and tribal lands. 

Yesterday, the Obama Administration took the final step in laying out a process 

for the next administration to provide a full environmental review for the Dakota 

Access pipeline. 

32.Will you commit to fully supporting the Army Corps of Engineers as it conducts 

reviews of alternative routes and to meaningful consultation with Native American 

tribes when a project could affect their tribal treaty rights? 

I cannot speak to the actions of the Army Corps of Engineers but if 

confirmed I will carry out any legal duties required by the Administrator of 

the EPA. 

Oil and natural gas extraction by way of hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," has 

expanded rapidly in the United States, including in your state of Oklahoma. As 

you know, there are increasing concerns about water and air contamination, 

including the seismic activity associated with wastewater disposal. EPA 

conducted a study of hydraulic fracturing's drinking water impacts and released a 

final report in December 2016. The agency found "hydraulic fracturing activities 

can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances." The report 

identifies certain conditions under which impacts from hydraulic fracturing 

activities can be more frequent or severe. Both Vermont and New York have 

169 
909 

banned hydraulic fracturing out of concerns for its public health and environmental 

effects. 

33.Do you concur with the conclusions of the EPA's final report on hydraulic 

fracturing and drinking water? 

As I discussed at my confirmation hearing, states like my home state of 

Oklahoma have been successfully regulating hydraulic fracturing for 

decades. As EPA officials have indicated the number of identified cases of 

drinking water contamination related to hydraulic fracturing activities is 

small particularly compared to the large number of hydraulically fractured 

wells and I agree with that assessment. 

34.Are there gaps in available data that make it difficult for the EPA to fully assess 

hydraulic fracturing effects on drinking water as well as air quality? 

Hydraulic fracturing has been extensively studied by state, federal, and nongovernmental bodies. 

35.What further studies-if any-do you believe would be appropriate for EPA to 

conduct on the effects of hydraulic fracturing on air and water quality? 

I am not aware of any urgent need for new studies of hydraulic fracturing 

but if confirmed I commit to review any new information on the subject. 

36.Do you agree, as EPA scientists found, that of the 1,606 chemicals injected for 

hydraulic fracturing, 173 chemicals are a proven risk to public health? 

Risk encompasses both hazard as well as a likelihood of exposure. EPA 

found that 173 of the chemicals listed can be hazardous but did not speak to 

their risk likely because of their very low probability of exposure. 

To date communities have been absorbing the costs of damage from oil and gas 

operations, whether that is in terms of health impacts, contaminated soils and 

water, which depress property values and destroy businesses, residential 

neighborhoods turned into industrial zones, earthquakes caused by injection wells 

(which are increasingly being excluded from homeowner insurance policies) and 

more. 

170 
910 

37.What would be your approach as Attorney General to ensuring that 

communities do not to absorb these costs, and operators become responsible for 

the full costs of their operations, including damages? 

As discussed at my confirmation hearing as Attorney General! have taken 

on oil and natural gas companies who violated Oklahoma laws and 

regulations. If confirmed, I will uphold and execute the laws as established 

by Congress. 

38.Given that High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing (HVHF), or fracking gas wells, 

currently require an average of 4.8-9. 7 million gallons of fresh water to fracture a 

single well (Note: This demand is growing by 11-20% per year), and only 4.5-

7.5% of this water is being recycled, would you consider modern-day oil and gas 

drilling to be a long-term, sustainable solution to our country's energy needs?" 

EPA's final report on hydraulic fracturing and drinking water found that in 

most cases hydraulic fracturing constituted "generally less than 1% of total 

water use" in counties and stated that their findings suggested "that 

hydraulic fracturing operations represented a relatively small user of water 

in most counties." I agree with these specific EPA conclusions. 

The Geography of Hydraulic Fracturing Fresllwater Oemand 

39.When did you first find out that fracking could cause earthquakes in Oklahoma 

under certain geological conditions? Did you publicly call on industry to alter their 

practices? 

171 
911 

As I stated at my confirmation hearing the Oklahoma Corporation 

Commission is vested with the jurisdiction of regulating oil and gas 

activities, they have acted to address seismicity concerns in the state and I 

have worked with and supported the Commission and other state agencies 

as required by state law. 

40.What percentage of injection wells in Oklahoma is monitored for pollution (in 

groundwater, deep and shallow)? In those that were monitored, what was the 

concentration of pollutants? 

Wastewater disposal through underground injection is regulated by the 

State of Oklahoma through delegated powers from the EPA pursuant to the 

Safe Drinking Water Act and to the best of my knowledge the State 

appropriately follows all requirements under the law. 

The "Hockey Stick Moment" is when a variable of interest hits an exponential point 

in its growth with respect to time. The most notable "Hockey Stick Moment" is the 

rising levels of atmospheric C02, N20, and CH4 resulting from anthropogenic 

forces. However, a moment closer to Oklahoma is the exponential increase in 

earthquake activity even the USGS has shown is a function of the disposal of 

nearly 20% of US tracking waste into Oklahoma and Kansas' Class II Injection 

wells. 

41.Do you agree that this growth in quake activity is a function of excessive and 

irresponsible oil and gas waste generation and disposal and is worthy of more 

research and monitoring by the EPA? 

As previously mentioned, wastewater disposal through underground 

injection is regulated by the State of Oklahoma under delegated powers 

from EPA pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act. Underground injection is 

not unique to the oil and natural gas industries as EPA has regulations on 

six different classes of underground injections. Underground injection of 

wastewater from oil and natural gas activities has been conducted safely in 

a number of states for decades, and, in a previous EPW hearing, Senator 

Cardin complimented "the actions taken" in Oklahoma with regard to oil and 

gas wastewater disposal. He went so far as to say the State "provided a 

good model that should be used in other States," lauding Oklahoma's 

actions as an example of "the Federal Government working with the State to 

develop the right framework for dealing with natural gas extraction." The 

State of Oklahoma has acted on local seismicity concerns and, to the best 

of my knowledge, follows all applicable SDWA requirements in regulating 

class 2 injection wells within the state. 

172 
912 

42.You at first belittled the idea that oil and gas operations could cause human 

induced seismicity in Oklahoma, so did Harold Hamm. Do you now believe that 

you were both wrong? 

As new information becomes available on a number of issues it should 

always be evaluated and taken into consideration. The State of Oklahoma 

has taken actions to address seismicity concerns related to the oil and 

natural gas industry and I support the state taking action. 

43.How would a Trump/Pruitt EPA address growing environmental and economic 

justice issues associated with existing oil refineries and associated 

unconventional oil and gas infrastructure proposals? 

As I stated at my confirmation hearing I believe addressing environmental 

justice in poor and minority communities is an important role of the EPA 

Administrator. If confirmed I intend to enforce laws under EPA jurisdiction 

with uniformity regardless of which industry a potential violation of law 

comes from. 

44.Would you support implementing a requirement to provide full, well specific, 

public disclosure of all information related to oil and gas development involving 

173 
913 

hydraulic fracturing that informs understanding groundwater, surface water, public 

health and safety, and habitat potential impacts? 

If confirmed I would review both EPA's legal authorities as well as the 

potential need for new requirements and regulations. 

With regards to decommissioning a former nuclear power plant, a fair amount of 

confusion appears to exist in regulating non-radiological hazardous materials 

during active plant demolition. Most agencies, including the EPA, will defer to the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for anything at a nuclear power plant site. 

However, the NRC does not regulate the non-radiological aspects of nuclear 

power plant operation--e.g., the NRC does not regulate chemical or oil spills that 

occur at a nuclear power plant site. 

45.How active of a role should the EPA play during the hazardous material survey 

and active demolition phases of power plant decommissioning to assure that 

public health and the environment are not impacted by a site's prior use as a 

nuclear power plant? 

In 2002, the EPA and the NRC signed a Memorandum of Understanding 

entitled "Consultation and Finality on Decommissioning and 

Decontamination of Contaminated Sites." The EPA's responsibilities with 

regard to the regulation of non-radiological hazardous materials are address 

in sections V.C.3, V.D.4, and VI. If confirmed, I will carry out EPA's 

responsibilities under the law. 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires all federal agencies to 

consider the potential environmental impact of any industrial project while the 

agencies assess their regulatory authority specific projects. While the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) does conduct Environmental Assessments for 

nuclear power plant construction, operations, modifications and decommissioning 

activities, these assessments are frequently conducted after all other technical 

assessments for a nuclear power plant project have been evaluated; meaning that 

they are not an integral part of the NRC's regulatory decision-making process. 

46.As Administrator, how will you encourage or require the NRC to more 

rigorously include NEPA requirements in its "technical" regulatory evaluations? 

I am not familiar with how the Nuclear Regulatory Commission conducts its 

analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act. Under section 309 of 

174 
914 

the Clean Air Act, EPA reviews and comments on the NEPA analyses of 

other agencies. If confirmed, I will ensure that EPA continues to carry out 

this statutory responsibility. 

Changes in weather patterns, such as heavier precipitation events that increase 

run-off and flooding, are affecting lakes, rivers, and reseNoirs nationwide. Water 

quality, quantity, and the integrity of our water infrastructure are at risk. Recent 

studies in the Northeast have found that degraded water quality on lakes can cost 

lakeside communities millions of dollars in losses from both tourism and taxable 

income due to reduced property values. 

47.How will the EPA support water resource management programs to address 

these issues? 

If confirmed, I will continue to implement the water quality protection 

authorities granted to EPA by Congress. These include regulatory and 

financial and technical assistance programs. The Clean Water Act 

expressly leaves the allocation of water quantity to states. I further note that 

Congress has not given EPA water resources management authorities. 

Instead, such programs are carried out by the Corps of Engineers and, in 

the 17 Western states, the Bureau of Reclamation. 

48.How would you address EPA's permitting backlog, e.g. the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (point source water dischargers) program? 

Making sure permits are current is one of core functions under the statutory 

responsibilities given to EPA and in turn carried out by authorized states. 

However, in recent years states have been asked to shift their focus and 

resources to other activities. If confirmed, I would focus on ensuring EPA is 

able to carry out its core functions under our environmental. 

Federal regulations such as the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act set 

national standards to protect our natural resources and safeguard public health. In 

2010 you campaigned against a "one-size-fits-all strategy" towards environmental 

protection. 

49.What did you mean by that and how would you, as EPA Administrator, ensure 

that all Americans are adequately protected against poisonous water and air 

regardless of where they happen to live? 

175 
915 

As I said in my testimony before the committee, I support national 

standards and neighborhood solutions. That means there may be one 

standard that applies nationally, but not only one way to achieve that 

standard. If confirmed, I will bring this philosophy to my role as EPA 

Administrator. 

SO.Do you support and stand behind the premise of the Clean Water and Clean 

Air Acts that every American has the right to clean water and air? 

I fully support the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. 

In a court filing opposing the Waters of the United States you wrote "This 

regulation usurps the state's authority over its land and water use, and triggers 

numerous and costly obligations under the [Clean Water] Act for the state and its 

citizens." 

51.Without national regulations how would you guarantee the quality of water that 

flows across state boundaries? 

Regulation of rivers and streams that form the boundaries of states or flows 

from one state to another is not an issue raised by states in the WOTUS 

litigation. 

52. Do you believe that the only people with an interest in water are those within a 

state and not downstream neighbors? 

No. 

53. Every national science organization, not to mention the Pentagon, lists climate 

change as a critical threat to our planet, our economy, and our national health. 

The Pentagon considers Climate Change a "Threat Multiplier'' and a "Growing 

Security Threat." Do you agree with the Pentagon and our National Security 

advisors regarding the severity of this crisis? 

l have no reason to disagree with the statements from the listed security 

experts, although I have not made any attempt to independently verify their 

accuracy. 

176 
916 

54.Piease describe your plan, process, or other information that the EPA may be 

able to provide to the Pentagon to mitigate or mollify the threats our military 

describes. 

Interagency cooperation is very important. I believe the development of 

military readiness and response plans are best left to our military and 

national security experts. If confirmed, I will provide technical expertise to 

other agencies as appropriate. 

55. Will you be promoting greater use of carbon-based fossil fuels? 

I do not believe it is the mission of the EPA to promote one type of energy 

source over another. If confirmed as Administrator, I will fairly and equitably 

enforce the laws within the framework established by Congress and not 

pick winners and losers. 

56. Do you think the EPA has any role in helping our nation decrease or end the 

consumption of carbon fuels? 

The mission of EPA is to set standards that protect the environment and the 

health and welfare of our citizens. While setting national energy policies are 

not within the statutorily ascribed purview of the agency, EPA regulatory 

actions often impact the ability of those charged with generating our 

nation's energy to do their job. If confirmed, I will listen to all impacted 

stakeholders when developing EPA actions. I will also coordinate with 

impacted agencies, such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, to 

ensure EPA's actions do not undermine their equally important missions 

and statutory objectives. 

57.Do you see any reason for reducing carbon emissions that come from using 

fossil fuels like oil, coal, and natural gas? 

I believe the Administrator has an important role when it comes to the 

regulation of carbon dioxide. If confirmed, I will fulfill the duties of the 

Administrator consistent with Massachusetts v. EPA and the agency's 

Endangerment Finding on Greenhouse Gases respective of the relative 

statutory framework established by Congress. 

58. What do you think are the most reliable sources for scientific news and 

information? 

177 
917 

If confirmed as EPA Administrator, I will adhere to the applicable statutory 

authorities to fulfill EPA's mission to protect human health and the 

environment and will base my decisions on sound science, including advice 

provided by agency experts and advisory personnel. 

59. Do you plan to request regular briefings from government science and/or 

intelligence sources? If so, how often? If not, why? 

If confirmed, I will make decisions based on sound science reflective of 

diverse, objective and unbiased views conducted in a transparent manner 

reliant on public engagement and consistent with the framework 

established by Congress. 

60.Do you intend to have meetings with or receive regular briefings from private 

industrial sources? If so, how often? If not, why? 

If confirmed, I intend to operate the agency consistent with the statutory 

framework established by Congress and follow associated processes, 

which require extensive outreach with the public and regulated community. 

The President-Elect has positioned himself as a champion of coal miners. You 

may be aware of the crisis facing the nation's largest multi-employer health and 

pension plans serving coal miner retirees, administered by the UMWA. The 

pension plan is facing insolvency within 10 years and, more immediately, over 

20,000 retired coal miners and their dependents are facing an imminent loss of 

health care coverage. Senator Manchin e developed a bi-partisan legislative 

response to this crisis called the Miners Protection Act that I co-sponsored. It was 

marked up and passed by the Senate Finance Committee last September on an 

18-8 vote. We were expecting the Senate and House Republican leadership to 

work with us to include the MPA in the Continuing Resolution package that we 

deliberated on during the lame duck session. We also asked the President-Elect 

to express his support for this legislation given his abundant pro-coal miner 

rhetoric during the Presidential campaign. Senate Democrats sent him a letter 

imploring him to publicly express his support. We got no response. The outcome 

was a Continuing Resolution that included nothing more than a 4 month extension 

of health benefits for the retirees who now face a termination of benefits in April 

instead of this month. 

178 
918 

61.How will you work with the President-elect and the rest of his cabinet to work 

with Congress to pass the MPA and fulfill the nation's commitment to the coal 

miners whose work powered this country for generations? 

I am not familiar with the proposed legislation referenced in the question or 

EPA's authorities and responsibilities for pension and health care plans for 

miners. 

As you may know, each federal agency, including EPA, has an important role in 

enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on 

the basis of race, color and national origin by recipients of federal funds. This is 

an accountability law- before the law was passed, federal funds were 

subsidizing agencies and organizations, from schools to hospitals to other 

agencies of government that discriminated. The case that led to the passage of 

Title VI was Simkins v. Moses Cone Memorial Hospital, a 1963 case in which a 

circuit court finally, 9 years after Brown v. Board, struck down a provision of 

federal law that allowed federally subsidized hospitals to have separate wings for 

"whites" and "colored" people under a "separate but equal" provision of a federal 

law called the Hill Burton Act. 

62.Are you familiar with Title VI? 

Yes. 

63.Are you familiar with the Moses Cone Memorial Hospital case? 

Yes. 

64. If confirmed, wiill you commit to enforcing Title VI and the regulations 

promulgated by EPA to enforce Title VI? 

If confirmed as Administrator, I will faithfully execute all laws enacted by 

Congress that impose duties or grant authority to me as Administrator, 

including the Civil Rights Act. 

Title VI (at 42 USC 2000d-1) specifically empowers "each federal department and 

agency" that distributes federal funds to effectuate Title VI and then authorizes 

each agency to issue rules, regulations and orders to implement the law. Thus, 

the authority and responsibility to enforce Title VI and to ensure that recipients of 

179 
919 

federal funds are not discriminating rests with each federal agency, including 

EPA As you may know, federal enforcement is all the more important because 

affected communities can't go to court to enforce claims unless they can prove 

intentional discrimination under a case that arose out of Alabama -Alexander v. 

Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001). 

65.Are you familiar with the text of Title VI, 42 USC 2000d, which prohibits 

discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin? 

Yes. 

66.What is your vision for Title VI enforcement at EPA? What reforms need to be 

made? What concrete steps do you envision to strengthen civil rights 

enforcement at EPA? 

If confirmed as Administrator, I will faithfully execute Title VI. I will expect 

my staff to evaluate any areas that might need reform, and I will take 

appropriate actions based on the recommendations made to me. 

67.Are you familiar with the Supreme Court decision in Alexander v. Sandoval 

(2001)? 

Yes. 

68.To your knowledge, does the text of the law define or limit the meaning of 

"discrimination"? 

I cannot answer this question without additional context as to what text of 

what law you refer to. 

69.Are you familiar with regulations promulgated by EPA to implement this 

language, found at 40 CFR Part 7? 

I cannot answer this question without additional context as to what you are 

referring to when you say "this language." 

?O.In your opinion, does this language further define what is meant by 

"discrimination"? 

180 
920 

I cannot answer this question without additional context as to what you are 

referring to when you say "this language." 

71.1n fact, the regulations prohibit actions with an unjustified disparate impact. Do 

you agree? 

The regulations speak for themselves. 

72.Are you aware of criticism that EPA has historically done a "poor'' job of 

enforcing Title VI and its regulations? 

I am not. 

73.1f so, do you agree or disagree with criticisms that EPA has historically done a 

"poor" job of enforcing Title VI and its regulations? 

Because I have not heard those criticisms, I cannot say whether I disagree 

or not. 

74.Are you familiar with the Deloitte Report (2011 ), 

see https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/723416/epa-ocr-audit.pdf, which 

documented problems with EPA's enforcement of Title VI? If so, what is your past 

experience with the Deloitte Report? 

I am not familiar with the report you reference. 

75.Were you aware that the Deloitte Report made the following findings: 

•The Office has not adequately adjudicated Title VI complaints- those 

addressing allegations of discrimination against communities of citizens affected 

to environmental rules promulgated by the EPA 

•OCR has not completed compliance checks of EPA grantees, in a timely or 

effective manner, to ensure that grantees are not engaging in discrimination in 

their work. 

I am not familiar with the report you reference. 

76.1f so, what is your past experience with the findings? 

181 
921 

I am not familiar with the findings. 

77.1n your opinion, what has the EPA already done to address these issues? 

I do not know what EPA has or has not done to address any such issues. 

78.Do you know whether these steps have been effective? 

Because I am not aware of the steps taken--if any--1 cannot judge their 

effectiveness. 

79.1n your opinion, what more could the EPA do to address these issues? 

It would be inappropriate for me to prejudge an issue that may come before 

me for decision if I am confirmed as Administrator. If the issue comes 

before me, I will ensure that the issue is fully and fairly considered, as part 

of a transparent process that seeks input from all stakeholders. 

80.1f confirmed, will you commit to taking action to address these issues? 

If confirmed as Administrator, I will faithfully execute all laws enacted by 

Congress and imposing upon EPA duties or powers. 

81.Do you believe that recipients of federal funds- across this whole countryare making any decisions that are discriminatory? 

I do not doubt that some recipients of federal funding engage in behaviors 

that violate federal anti-discrimination laws. 

82.Under Title VI and its regulations, should recipients of federal funds review 

whether a decision has a disproportionate adverse impact to ensure that it is in 

compliance with civil rights law? 

Recipients of federal funds should take all actions required by law to ensure 

that they are in compliance with federal civil rights laws. 

83.0o you have plans for pre-award compliance reviews? When would any such 

plans go into effect? And post-award compliance reviews? What would such 

reviews involve? 

182 
922 

If confirmed as Administrator, I will ensure that federal funds are awarded in 

compliance with federal law. 

84.What is your understanding of the obligations of recipients under Title VI and 

EPA implementing regulations? Do you think those obligations are sufficient? 

The obligations of recipients of federal funds are defined by the statutes 

and regulations to which you refer. Those statutes and regulations speak 

for themselves. 

Energy burdens above six percent of a household's income are typically 

considered unaffordable, but low income households spend an average of 15 to 

20 percent of their income on energy bills. Low income families are also more 

likely to live in older, inefficient housing. The Clean Power Plan provides 

incentives to states to invest in energy efficiency improvements in low income 

communities. 

85.Are you concerned about the lack of access to energy efficient, affordable 

housing for low income families? 

I am unfamiliar with EPA's role and statutory authorities as they relate to 

affordable housing. I am concerned about the impact regulations can have 

on the cost of energy for consumers. 

86.As EPA Administrator, how would you help low income working families reduce 

their energy burdens and access energy-efficient affordable housing? 

I am unfamiliar with EPA's role and statutory authorities as they relate to 

affordable housing. 

Low-income rural and urban communities and people of color are 

disproportionately live near, are exposed to, and die from environmental 

risks/hazards. As of February 27, 2014, there were 1322 Superfund sites on the 

National Priorities List in the United States. Fifty-three additional sites have been 

proposed for entry on the list. Communities of color breathe in nearly 40 percent 

more polluted air than whites. Sixty-eight percent of African-Americans live within 

thirty miles of a coal-fired power plant, the zone of maximum exposure to 

pollutants that cause an array of ailments, from heart disease to birth defects. Half 

of all U.S. Latinos live in the country's most polluted cities. Hispanic children are 

twice as likely as non-Hispanic white children to die from asthma while, from 

2012-2014, African American children had a death rate ten times that of nonHispanic white children. African-American children are three times as likely to 

suffer an asthma attack. 

183 
923 

87.As EPA Administrator, how would you ensure that vulnerable low-income 

communities and communities of color are not overburdened by the harmful 

impacts of pollution? 

If confirmed, I expect to make the cleanup of contaminated land one of my 

priorities. I believe the nation's environmental laws apply to all Americans. 

BB.Would you say there is anything you will do, if confirmed, to help these 

Americans? Will you push to reduce smog and particulate matter that causes 

more asthma attacks and other lung problems? Or is that a matter for the states 

and not the EPA? 

If confirmed, I will work to ensure human health is protected by 

implementing Clean Air Act provisions, such as the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for criteria pollutants, including for ground-level ozone 

and particulate matter, which prioritize protection of human health and 

welfare. I will also work to ensure all Americans are treated equally under 

the law in furtherance of EPA's mission to protect human health and the 

environment. 

EPA has adopted many cost-effective safeguards in the past eight years that 

would significantly reduce the pollution that contributes to asthma attacks in 

children -- many of which you challenged as Attorney General of Oklahoma. 

89.Can you explain how you will protect the interests of these and other children 

that suffer from asthma? 

As I stated in my testimony to the committee, all legal positions that I took 

in my capacity as Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma were in an the 

capacity of an advocate. If confirmed as Administrator, I will consider all 

matters presented to me with an open mind and will work to reach 

conclusions that are reflected in the administrative record of each matter 

and that comport with Congress's intent in enacting the Act. 

90.Will you commit to working to further reduce pollution, including pollution that 

disproportionately burdens Hispanic and Environmental Justice communities? 

If confirmed, I will work to ensure all Americans are treated equally under 

the law in furtherance of EPA's mission to protect human health and the 

environment. 

91.Do you think the EPA has done enough to ensure that low-income 

communities near brownfields receive the same amount of attention as high184 
924 

income communities? Will you give priority to the safety and health of our children 

and future generations over short-term current economic gains of few? 

I do not know what EPA has or has not done on this issue. If confirmed as 

Administrator, I will work to ensure the brownfields program is operated in 

accordance with applicable legal requirements. 

92.Municipal electric utilities depend on the municipal bond tax-exempt status. 

For Vermont Municipal electric utilities, this is particularly true with regard to utility 

investments. Do you support tax-exempt bonding as one important tools to 

improve utility infrastructure (electric, water, wastewater, etc)? 

As Attorney General for Oklahoma, I have not studied the issues related to 

tax-exempt bonds for utility infrastructure. I am not familiar with EPA's role 

and legal authorities as they relate to municipal tax-exempt bonds. 

Your state of Texas is part of a market (ERCOT) that is not Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission jurisdictional. This means that Texas does not comply 

with the same requirements as electric utilities in Vermont and other ISO regions 

face. ERCOT seems to have embraced wind and other renewable sources. 

93.What are the strengths of the ERCOT approach? 

I am Attorney General for Oklahoma, not Texas, and do not have an opinion 

on the Texas electric grid. 

94.How would you contrast those with the strengths and weaknesses of the New 

England ISO? 

I am not familiar with the electric grid in New England. 

"Green infrastructure" (forests, wetlands, natural floodplains, etc.) can play a 

critical role in reducing impacts of flooding from extreme weather events like 

Tropical Storm Irene, and in helping to meet essential water quality 

requirements/improvements such as the EPA-approved Lake Champlain Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plan. Also, green infrastructure is often much more 

cost effective than updating or investing in new traditional "gray infrastructure." 

EPA has played an important role in providing training, technical and financial 

assistance related to capitalizing green infrastructure. 

185 
925 

95.What do you see as EPA's role going foiWard related to green infrastructure? 

Green infrastructure is a good example of a neighborhood solution that can 

achieve compliance with national standards. I believe EPA should be 

supportive of such efforts. If confirmed, I will work to break down barriers 

within EPA to the use of green infrastructure. 

In your own state of Oklahoma, wastewater disposal from tracking and drilling has 

induced thousands of earthquakes, threatening lives and destroying property. Joe 

and Mary Reneau suffered through a 5.7 magnitude quake (Nov. 6, 2011) near 

Prague, Oklahoma- their chimney fell into the living room, right on top of a 

favorite spot of Mary's to sit. Luckily for them, Mary wasn't sitting there at the time, 

they had earthquake insurance, and they had $200,000 of repairs done on their 

house. Joe jokes that he won the earthquake lottery. Jerry and John Loveland 

weren't so lucky, they had $50,000 worth of damage done on their house, no 

insurance, and no way to pay for the damage. Oklahoma is an oil and gas state. 

Joe Reneau said he wouldn't bring any claims against the oil company, because if 

he did, he would be "run out of town." Oklahoma regulators have done next to 

nothing to help those harmed by oil industry induced quakes or prevent more 

destruction. 

96.As EPA administrator, what will you do to help the Amos family, John and 

Catherine Fenton, or all those in Oklahoma threatened by oil industry induced 

earthquakes? 

As I have previously stated, underground injection is regulated by the State 

of Oklahoma under delegated authority from EPA under the Safe Drinking 

Water Act. The State has taken action to address seismicity concerns and, if 

I am confirmed, I will continue working with States and within EPA's legal 

authorities to address public health and environmental concerns. 

In September 2016, the EPA recommended a moratorium on the underground 

injection of tracking wastewater in certain earthquake-prone parts of Oklahoma 

because regulations had not successfully addressed the problem. 

97.Will you uphold the EPA's recommendation-yes or no? 

The State of Oklahoma has worked collaboratively with the EPA to address 

seismicity concerns and state regulators have shut down dozens of 

186 
926 

underground injection wells and, if confirmed, I will continue this 

cooperative approach to addressing such future issues as they might arise. 

98. Specifically, EPA's recommendation arose out of the agency learning that the 

Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the body overseeing the underground 

injection control program in a primacy agreement with the EPA, has illegally 

permitted restricted wells to return to normal operations. While EPA cannot order 

Oklahoma to impose a moratorium, it can revoke the state's authority and take 

over regulation of the wells itself. As EPA Administrator, will you regulate these 

wells in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act and in addressing the 

seismic catastrophe occurring in your state-yes or no? 

If confirmed as EPA Administrator I will review relevant information, 

including EPA's legal authorities, to ensure drinking water protections in 

Oklahoma and across the nation. 

99.Do you think local communities have the right to protect themselves from 

pollution and other threats to public health? 

Yes, if authorized under the law and not preempted or displaced by state or 

federal law. 

100.Will you, as EPA Administrator, support these state and local regulations by 

not intervening or challenging them-yes or no? 

I believe in cooperative federalism and I will work with States and local 

communities to protect citizens consistent with our nations laws. 

101. How do you reconcile challenging these rules with your view of respecting 

and giving deference to state and local environmental regulation? 

It is not clear to me what rules are being referred to in this question, 

however, I believe that environmental and public health protections are the 

strongest when there is collaboration across all levels of government 

consistent with applicable laws. 

The FracTracker Alliance has shown that 11% of organic farms are within 1/2 mile 

of oil and gas development, and 100% offarms within the San Joaquin Valley and 

Southern California are within 8 miles of oil and gas operations (59,840 wells), 

187 
927 

and that produced water is being used to irrigate crops (and also organic crops). 

California feeds 50% of the country. 

102. What is your response to the US maintaining food independence and food 

safety when the majority of its food sheds are threatened by oil and gas 

contamination? 

I have seen no evidence or information that proximity to oil and natural gas 

development has contaminated or threatened to contaminate our nation's 

food safety. The State of California would be better able to address their 

laws and regulations with regards to the location of oil and gas 

development in their State as well as their irrigation policies. 

103. Why is energy independence more important than food independence? 

I have not made any statements ranking the importance of these two issues 

critical to our nation's health and welfare. 

104. We have the opportunity to be both energy independent and food 

independent without poisoning people and the planet. Why should the US be 

dependent on other countries to supply its food, but not be dependent on other 

countries to supply its energy? 

I support both the goals of domestic energy independence as well as 

protecting our domestic food supply and working collaboratively with our 

nation's farmers and ranchers. 

105. From your Great Plains perspective how do you feel the advent of High 

Volume Hydraulic Fracturing (HVHF) will affect the growing concerns about food 

security/safety relative to energy infrastructure? 

Oklahoma, as a rural state, has long successfully balanced safe energy 

production as well as farming and ranching. 

106. How can the public trust the oil and gas industry when it is exempt from so 

many environmental regulations? 

Any statutory exemptions come from Congress and if confirmed I will 

uphold the laws as directed by the Constitution. 

188 
928 

107. How can rural communities trust oil and gas operators when rural gas 

gathering lines are exempt from federal pipeline safety regulations (because of 

the exemption, states also cannot regulate rural gas gathering lines, and therefore 

because they are not regulated the operators do not have an obligation to report 

on incremental failures along the pipelines, they are only required to report if there 

is a need for an evacuation). 

The State of Oklahoma has worked well with both rural communities and the 

domestic energy industry (including alternative energy producers as well as 

conventional) and, if confirmed, I will continue working to foster safe 

domestic energy development and maintain trust with our nation's 

communities both rural and urban. 

The conventional food supply is sufficiently burdened by a toxic load from 

pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and genetic modification. It doesn't need yet 

another toxic burden. 

108. How can consumers trust the food in restaurants and grocery stores when it 

may be grown near oil and gas operations? 

If confirmed, I would expect to be briefed by staff to before taking action and 

would work to ensure EPA followed all applicable legal requirements and 

made decisions based on sound science. 

109. How can parents trust the food that is being served to their kids in school 

cafeterias? 

If confirmed, I would expect to be briefed by staff to assess what role, if any, 

EPA plays concerning the safety of food served in school cafeterias. 

Many of our environmental laws were designed to permit regulation and 

enforcement by the states so long as state programs meet minimum federal 

standards established by EPA. Since state laws, however, do not always have 

general effect or application on Indian lands, Congress has amended several of 

our environmental statutes to permit tribes themselves to assume primacy of 

enforcement. 

110. Do you intend to encourage tribes to develop their own enforcement regimes 

under approved programs, much as the states do? Or do you expect EPA itself to 

189 
929 

provide direct regulation and enforcement of federal environmental laws on Indian 

lands throughout the country? 

If confirmed as Administrator, I would ensure that Indian lands were subject 

to adequate environmental regulation, whether that be through tribes 

utilizing regulatory powers as contemplated by Congress, or through direct 

regulation by the EPA. 

Much of the nation's and the world's attention has been focused in recent months 

on the Dakota Access Pipeline, the construction of which crosses multiple states. 

Many pipelines on Indian lands are located entirely within a single state, however. 

Here EPA is not always the primary regulator, and state laws do not always apply. 

The health and environmental consequences of pipeline failures, however, can be 

enormous. 

111. Will you commit to work with this Committee and other agencies to address 

the environmental and public health and safety issues associated with the 

operation of pipelines on Indian lands, including purely intrastate pipeline 

facilities? 

If confirmed as Administrator, I would faithfully execute any obligations 

imposed on EPA by Congress to ensure the environmental soundness of 

pipelines on Indian lands. 

Many of the nation's Superfund sites are on Indian lands. We are still dealing with 

clean-up issues from our uranium industry's legacy from the 1940s and 1950s. 

The nation's largest open pit uranium mine--Jackpile Mine on Laguna--was only 

recently added to the Superfund list. The largest Superfund site in the country in 

your own state is largely on Indian lands: Tar Creek on Quapaw. We have not 

fully addressed abandoned uranium mill tailings piles and the failure of the Church 

Rock Dam that dumped irradiated mill tailings into Navajo lands and waters. More 

recently the failure of the dam below the Gold King Mine in Colorado turned the 

San Juan River on the Navajo Reservation red all the way to Utah. Today, and 

nearly every day, fugitive coal dust emissions from trains silt over spawning 

grounds of treaty-protected fisheries. Oceangoing dumping threatens subsistence 

lifeways throughout Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. Newer and more virulent 

strains of black lung disease are overwhelming public health facilities in mining 

communities. These are just a few examples of major environmental issues that 

impact disproportionately the poor and the underrepresented elements of our 

society, including Indian communities and tribal lands. 

190 
930 

112. Can you assure us that under your leadership the EPA will address issues of 

environmental justice in Native American communities and offer a voice to those 

most affected by the environmental consequences of industrialization? 

If confirmed as Administrator, I will faithfully execute all environmental laws 

enacted by Congress, and will do so in all communities, including Native 

American communities. 

These questions extend to resources protected by treaties such as water rights 

and compacts, forestry, hunting and trapping, fishing, etc. Some treaties have 

language that doesn't apply any longer and needs to be updated. Other language 

needs updating to reflect cultural realities. For example, "hunting" rights do not 

include "trapping rights" in the letter of the treaty unless trapping is explicitly 

mentioned, even though the tribes did not differentiate between both. 

113. Please describe the relationship between the federal government and 

American Indian Tribes as it relates to sovereignty the trust responsibility. 

Pursuant to federal law, the federal government has a trust responsibility to 

American Indian Tribes. 

114. What obligations do federal agencies have to formally consult with American 

Indian tribes? What about independent federal agencies? 

The obligations of federal agencies--independent or otherwise-to formally 

consult with American Indian tribes are defined by federal law. If confirmed 

as Administrator, I will faithfully execute all laws enacted by Congress 

requiring or authorizing formal consultation with American Indian tribes. 

115. What procedures should the EPA follow regarding permitting of infrastructure 

projects that could potentially impact American Indian tribes and their citizens? 

If confirmed as Administrator, I will faithfully execute all laws enacted by 

Congress requiring that procedures be followed with regard to 

infrastructure projects that could potentially impact American Indian tribes 

and their citizens 

116. How do you interpret the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of 

Indigenous Peoples, especially as it relates to obligations of the federal 

government? 

191 
931 

The federal government's obligations with respect to Indian tribes is defined 

by federal law. 

117. Do you believe federal funding should be block granted to states to then 

disburse to tribes? Alternatively, should tribes receive their full and fair allocation 

of federal funding without being beholden to cumbersome state bureaucracy? 

Federal funding should be disbursed to States and tribes in the manner 

directed by Congress. 

118. What is the federal government's role in permitting extraction of mineral 

resources on federal Indian lands? 

As trustee of federal Indian lands, the federal government's role is to act in 

the best interest of the tribes with regard to permitting extracting of mineral 

resources on those lands. 

119. How will you promote economic development within Indian country? 

If confirmed as Administrator, I will faithfully execute all laws enacted by 

Congress directing or authorizing me to promote economic development 

within Indian country. 

120. How will you ensure the Bureau of Indian Education provides quality 

education to American Indian students? 

The Bureau of Indian Education is overseen by the Department of the 

Interior, not EPA. 

121. What is the role of the federal government to promote renewable energy 

development on American Indian lands? 

The federal government's role in promoting renewable energy development 

on American Indian lands is determined by Congress. If confirmed as 

Administrator, I will faithfully execute all laws enacted by Congress 

imposing upon EPA duties relating to promoting renewable energy 

development on American Indian lands. 

192 
932 

122. What is the role of inter-agency cooperation to work across agencies on 

American Indian issues? 

If confirmed as Administrator, I will faithfully execute all laws enacted by 

Congress imposing upon EPA duties relating to American Indian issues, 

and if faithful execution of those laws requires cooperation with other 

federal agencies, I will ensure that such cooperation occurs. 

123. Will you work with the White House Inter-Agency Working Group on 

American Indian issues? 

If confirmed as Administrator, I will faithfully execute all laws enacted by 

Congress requiring or authorizing me to work with the White House InterAgency Working Group on American Indian issues. 

Federal Indian law has long recognized that tribes maintain authority over Indian 

country to the exclusion of states. Oklahoma has 38 federally recognized Indian 

tribes and those tribes exert jurisdiction over their lands throughout the state. But 

as Oklahoma Attorney General, your office has never filed a brief in support of 

tribal jurisdiction. Instead, your office filed briefs in ODEQ v. EPA, the Dollar 

General case, and several other cases OPPOSING tribal jurisdiction. 

124. How can you hope to serve as a protector of tribal lands when you have, 

over and over again, advocated to deny tribal governments the right to regulate 

and protect their OWN resources? 

As Oklahoma Attorney General, my duty was to ensure that the State of 

Oklahoma's jurisdiction was fully realized, and sometimes took legal actions 

in pursuit of that duty. If confirmed as Administrator, I will faithfully execute 

all laws enacted by Congress directing or authorizing me serve as a 

protector of tribal lands. 

Indian lands outside reservation boundaries. The EPA has, since at least 1984, 

recognized the federal government's trust responsibility, which is built upon the 

longstanding historical and legal relationship between the federal government and 

Indian tribes. The EPA has also acknowledged that treaties, as part of the 

supreme law of the land, have the same legal force as federal statutes and must 

be considered when making agency decisions. 

193 
933 

125. How will you work to protect tribal treaty lands and resources that lie outside 

of reservation boundaries, and how will you help expand tribal authority over 

those lands and resources? 

If confirmed as Administrator, I will faithfully execute all laws enacted by 

Congress directing or authorizing me to regulate tribal treaty lands and 

resources and directing or authorizing me to seek to expand tribal authority 

over those lands and resources. 

Tribal communities, especially those in Alaska, have borne the brunt of the 

impacts of climate change. Several Native Alaskan villages have seen their entire 

way of life vanish as their homes have begun to erode away beneath their feet 

due to rising sea levels. Others have seen vital food supplies contaminated and 

sacred species offish devastated by climate change. 

126. How do you plan to protect native peoples from the effects of climate 

change? 

If confirmed as EPA Administrator, I will adhere to the applicable statutory 

authorities to fulfill EPA's mission to protect human health and the 

environment for all of our nation's citizens. 

127.There are established consultation processes set up for Indian Nations. Will 

you have "meaningful" talks with them? Will your Agency be transparent in all 

dealings with Tribal Nations? Will you be honest and fair? 

If confirmed as Administrator, I will faithfully execute all laws enacted by 

Congress requiring consultation processes for Indian tribes. I will engage 

all who have business before the EPA--including Indian tribes--in 

meaningful, transparent, honest, and fair processes. 

194 
934 

Senator Sullivan: 

1. Alaska's seafood industry is the nation's largest and is one of major employer's 

in the Alaska economy. In fact, over 60 percent of the nation's commercially 

harvested fishery resources are caught and processed in Alaska. Alaska's waters 

remain some of the cleanest and most pristine in the nation. Most of the seafood 

processors who process these great resources are located in remote areas of 

Alaska. Each of those processors hold Clean Water Act discharge permits for the 

small amounts of seafood waste produced during procession operations. 

EPA has delegated the management of those discharge permits to the State of 

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation as directed by the CWA. In 

spite of that delegation, EPA remains actively involved in deciding issues that 

impact the ability of the state agency to accomplish its mission. For example, the 

EPA is currently considering a rule change that would dramatically impact the 

operation of seafood processing plants in those remote areas. That change could 

result in some of those operations having to cease processing because they 

cannot comply with this rule change. The current rule has been in place for almost 

35 years and there is no water quality problem in the locations to justify such a 

rule change. 

Will you commit to reviewing this proposal and confer with the Alaska 

Congressional Delegation prior to making any change to the current status? 

If confirmed, I will review this proposal and conf~r with the Alaska 

Congressional Delegation prior to changing the Clean Water Act regulations 

currently applicable to seafood processors. 

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has recently issued a 

draft Clean Water Act APDES permit to allow seafood processors to continue 

discharging small amounts of waste pursuant to the Clean Water Act. 

Unfortunately, EPA is objecting to some of the permit conditions. Again, they are 

doing so with no known water quality issues or public concern about those 

conditions. Rather, it appears as though the EPA does not approve of the manner 

in which our state agency is pursuing its obligations. As a former State of Alaska 

Department of Natural Resources Commissioner, I have great faith in the ability of 

state employees to make solid permitting decisions that will protect the state's 

environment while allowing operations and employment to continue that are 

compliant with the Clean Water Act. 

195 
935 

2. Will you commit to reviewing these EPA actions and allow the state to issue its 

permit? 

Yes, if confirmed, I will review EPA's actions as they relate to Alaska 

seafood processing permits. As I stated in my testimony, I support national 

standards and neighborhood solutions. 

3. CERCLA Financial Assurance Requirements under Section 108(b}: 

On December 1, 2016 the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed 

rule under Section 1 08(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act that would require hard rock mines to obtain 

additional and duplicate financial assurance requirements for copper, gold, iron, 

zinc and other hard rock mines. If this proposed rule is finalized, the financial 

assurance requirements would likely result in significant redundant costs for 

mining corporations. EPA has indicated that these regulations will expand to the 

oil and gas sector next. If confirmed would you work to ensure that any new rules 

or regulations are not duplicative of rules imposed by other federal agencies or 

states? 

I am not familiar with the details of this rulemaking action and would not 

want to prejudge the issue prior to being confirmed as Administrator. 

However, if confirmed I will work to ensure EPA complies with all applicable 

legal requirements, including those related to analyzing impacts on small 

businesses, as part of this or any other rulemaking. 

4. Section 404( c) of the Clean Water Act: 

Do you believe that EPA's use of a preemptive veto of a project under section 

404(c) of the Clean Water Act may create the opportunity for overreach by the 

agency and could undermine administrative process and the rule of law? 

As I stated in my testimony, I believe that it is very important that federal 

agencies follow the appropriate legal process when taking any actions. Any 

preemptive action before the completion of a statutorily mandated process 

could undermine both the administrative process and the rule of law. 

196 
936 

Senator Whitehouse: 

1.Estuaries are important coastal habitats the sustain unique wildlife and plant 

species, serve as a nurseries for commercially important fish, buffer coastal 

communities from coastal storms, and filter water as it flows into the ocean. The 

EPA manages a network of 28 estuaries of national significance around the 

country. Last Congress, the National Estuary Program (NEP) was reauthorized 

through 2021 (Public Law No.114-162) in a bipartisan effort and charged with 

providing grants to support projects that address a number of problems facing 

estuarine and coastal environments, including seagrass habitat loss, harmful algal 

blooms, invasive species, and sea level rise. Coming from a non-coastal state, 

please describe in detail how you will acquaint yourself with 1) the NEP, and 2) 

coastal issues the NEP helps address. 

If confirmed, I would expect to be briefed by EPA staff on the relevant 

statutory authority and any EPA programs established pursuant to this 

authority. 

2. Each NEP must institute a Comprehensive Conservation and Management 

Plan (CCMP) to guide management and conservation decisions at the NEP. The 

effects of climate change on estuaries (i.e., saltwater inundation, increased 

rainfall-driven runoff, warming waters) are included in these CCMPs. Would you 

direct the NEPs to disregard the consequences of climate change in the CCMPs 

and other decision-making reports and tools? 

If confirmed, I would expect to be briefed by EPA staff on the relevant 

statutory authority and any EPA programs established pursuant to this 

authority. If confirmed, I will follow all as enacted by Congress. 

3. The Climate Ready Estuaries program coordinates with the NEP to educate 

managers on how to assess the effects of climate change on U.S. estuaries. It 

also provides recommendations and toolkits to help design climate change 

adaptation and risk identification capabilities. Will you direct the Climate Ready 

Estuaries program to remove any materials, cancel any webinars or 

presentations, or stop its coordinated work on climate change with the NEPs? 

I am not familiar with the details of the specific program referenced in your 

question. If confirmed, I would expect to be briefed by EPA staff on the 

relevant statutory authority and any EPA programs established pursuant to 

this authority. 

4.Marine debris is a growing problem around the world, with plastic debris being 

the most troublesome component due to its pervasiveness and persistence in the 

marine environment. The EPA is currently a co-chair of the federal Interagency 

Marine Debris Coordinating Committee. Under your direction, will the EPA to 

maintain a leadership role on the committee? How will you continue EPA's 

197 
937 

coordinated work with NOAA and other agencies to prevent marine debris, 

conduct education outreach, and support research efforts? 

I am not familiar with the details of the specific program referenced in your 

question. If confirmed, I would expect to be briefed by EPA staff on the 

relevant statutory authority to better understand EPA's role compared to 

those of other federal agencies on this issue. 

5.EPA completed a State of the Science White Paper in December entitled "A 

Summary of Literature on the Chemical Toxicity of Plastics Pollution to Aquatic 

Life and Aquatic-Dependent Wildlife." The white paper identified four key areas 

where additional research is needed: 1) "the fate of chemicals both sorbed to and 

in plastics under differing environment conditions and within an organism after 

ingestion;" 2) "the relative role plastics play in chemical contaminant transfer to 

the tissues of organisms compared to other exposure pathways (aqueous dermal 

exposure and ingestion from natural prey);" 3) "the relative impacts of physical 

and chemical effects of ingested plastic particles on a wide range of organisms;" 

and 4) "whether the relatively high surface area of nanoplastics compared to 

microplastics and their potential to permeate membranes with increased retention 

time may increase their toxicological risk to organisms." What is EPA's role and 

responsibility in finding answers to these research questions? 

I am not familiar with the report referenced in this question. If confirmed as 

Administrator, I would expect to be brief by staff to learn more about EPA's 

authorities and responsibilities before taking any actions referenced in the 

question. 

6.Do you accept the science of ocean acidification that has directly connected the 

increase in human-caused carbon dioxide emissions with decreases in ocean pH? 

First, I would note that the oceans are alkaline and are projected to remain 

so. Second, it is my understanding that the degree of alkalinity in the ocean 

is highly variable and therefore it is difficult to attribute that variability to 

any single cause. 

?.Do you accept that the oceans are currently acidifying at a rate unprecedented 

in tens of millions of years? 

First, I would note that the oceans are alkaline and are projected to remain 

so. Second, it is my understanding that the degree of alkalinity in the ocean 

is highly variable and therefore it is difficult to attribute that variability to 

any single cause. I am unaware of tens of millions of years of data on the pH 

of oceans. 

198 
938 

8.Do you accept ocean acidification's predicted toll on coral reefs worldwide, 

important habitats for recreation, tourism, and commercial fishing? 

I am aware that there is a relationship between the alkalinity of water and 

the calcification process that grows shells and reefs and that a decrease in 

alkalinity can impair that process. 

9.What is the EPA's role in helping states and coastal communities mitigate or 

adapt to the challenges projected for the shellfish industries or the thousands of 

individuals that make their living off of this billion-dollar resource? 

If confirmed, I will implement the laws that EPA is charged to administer. 

Under section 304 of the CWA EPA establishes water quality criteria to 

protect aquatic life, including shellfish. Certain EPA programs also include 

authorities that can support projects that may benefit the shellfish industry, 

including the National Estuary Program under section 320 of the CWA, the 

Long Island Sound programs under section 119 of the CWA, and the 

Chesapeake Bay program under section 117 of the CWA. Finally, section 

319 of the CWA can support programs and projects to reduce runoff that 

may impact oyster beds. 

10. What do you understand to be the consequences of sea level rise, increased 

storm surge, and warming ocean waters on coastal communities and estuaries? 

If confirmed, I would expect to be briefed by staff on the impact sea level 

rise, storm surge, and warming ocean waters on consequences on coastal 

communities and estuaries. 

11.Both states and some Members of Congress have for years criticized EPA for 

"one-size-fits-all approaches" and failing to give adequate flexibility to states. Yet 

in challenging EPA's Clean Power Plan, you attacked EPA for just that- giving 

states and regions too much latitude in administering the Clean Air Act. Wouldn't 

that take the Agency in the wrong direction? 

I, along with the Supreme Court, which issued a stay against the Clean 

Power Plan in February 2016, believe the EPA exceeded the bounds of 

authority established by Congress in the Clean Air Act. In particular, the 

Rule attempted to supplant decisions traditionally preserved for the states, 

including the establishment of intrastate energy policies, for agency 

mandated alternatives that would have increased the price of electricity for 

local citizens and reduced reliability. The notion of flexibility in the Clean 

Power Plan was conceptual at best. If confirmed, I will work to achieve the 

objectives of EPA-administered laws consistent with the process and 

framework established by Congress abiding by the bedrock principle of 

cooperative federalism, which relies on meaningful collaboration between 

the EPA and the states to achieve important environmental objectives. 

199 
939 

12.According to the EPA, it has been estimated that the Clean Air Act has a 

history of reducing air pollution, while creating jobs. Since 1970 aggregate 

emissions of common air pollutants dropped 72 percent, while the U.S. gross 

domestic product grew 219 percent Total private sector jobs increased by 101 

percent over the same period. In 2020, EPA estimates that the standards will 

create the equivalent of over 104,000 new jobs including 17,000 new jobs building 

renewable energy facilities and over 78,000 jobs in improving demand-side 

energy efficiency. Do you agree that regulations under the Clean Air Act since 

1970 have grown the economy? If not, can you provide your analysis, materials 

used, and people you solicited to come to this conclusion? 

The success of the Clean Air Act is a direct result of the important 

partnership between the EPA and the states in developing and 

implementing its key programs. State regulators best understand the needs 

and uniqueness of local environmental challenges while the EPA is well 

positioned to set and adjust environmental safeguards that continue to 

improve the nation's air, land and water and protect public welfare. If 

confirmed as Administrator, I will adhere to the clear directives and process 

set out by Congress so that the agency can once again focus on fulfilling its 

core mission. 

13.1n 2014, four Republican former EPA Administrators- Bill Reilly, Bill 

Ruckelshaus, Lee Thomas, Governor Christine Todd Whitman- testified before 

EPW that climate change is real, EPA regulations do not end up costing as much 

as industry initially estimates, and EPA has clear authority under the Clean Air Act 

to curb carbon pollution. In a 2015 interview with Climate Progress, Governor 

Whitman said: "The idea the EPA is a job killer is false" and with regard to the 

Clean Power Plan "what EPA did was to allow as much flexibility as frankly I've 

ever seen them be able to create in a regulation." 

Do you think that the former Administrators are correct in their assessment that 

regulations do not cost as much as industry initially estimates? If not, can you 

explain why not? 

I am not sure what specific regulations the former EPA Administrators were 

referring to and accordingly lack sufficient information to answer the 

specific question. Generally speaking, if confirmed, I will work to ensure 

that EPA regulatory actions accurately account for the costs and benefits 

across all impacted stakeholders. 

14.Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage is a bipartisan policy area that I am 

working on with my Republican colleagues. Senator Graham and I visited the 

world's first Carbon Capture project in Canada that has been operational since 

2014. In 2016, SaskPower successfully captured and injected 800,000 metric tons 

of carbon dioxide and the facility has operated nearly 85 percent of the time. 

Recently, Petra Nova in Texas became the first United States first post200 
940 

combustion carbon capture project to begin operation. SaskPower and Petra 

Nova are fisted in the Clean Power Plan as viable options for helping states reach 

their Clean Power Plan targets. Do you believe that CCUS is a viable technology 

for reducing emissions from power plants? 

I believe CCUS technology can play an important role in the development of 

our future coal fleet, however it is not yet a viable option. Both the 

SaskPower and Petra Nova plants referenced in your question relied on 

significant support from their respective governments to become 

operational. Forcing private businesses to use unproven, expensive 

technology would be unfair, which is why Congress provided for 

protections against the EPA embracing such a practice in the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005. 

15.1n Rhode Island we have BioProcess H20 in Portsmouth and Agcore 

Technologies, LLC in Cranston that do carbon utilization-the conversion of 

carbon dioxide into useable products and fuels. These technologies not only 

capture carbon pollution, but can ease the demand of over-fishing by offering an 

alternative source of oils and protein. The carbon pollution from the algae 

production is creating and delivering algae-derived fish and animal feed. These 

utilization technologies are available now and are reducing carbon emissions. We 

also have retrofitted coal facilities using CCUS (SaskPower and Petra Nova). Do 

you believe that CCUS should be pursued as an emission reduction technology 

for the power sector and industrial sector? 

Congress established clear directives the Administrator must consider 

when setting new source performance standards under the Clean Air Act. 

These directives are not technology specific, but instead require the 

Administrator set standards based on the best system of emission 

reduction that is technically feasible, achievable, adequately demonstrated 

and considerate of costs. If confirmed, I will follow the Clean Air Act 

process respective of the framework set by Congress. 

16.According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, in 2014, Oklahoma 

ranked fourth in the nation in net electricity generation from wind, which provided 

nearly 17% of the state's net generation. The American Wind Energy Association 

also estimates that wind power saved electricity customers in Oklahoma more 

than $1.2 billion in 2013 and a study from the Oklahoma State University found 

that wind companies have paid close to $134 million in property taxes to the state 

since 2004, producing revenues for the state. Do you agree that wind energy has 

saved Oklahomans money and brought revenues to the state? Do you agree that 

wind energy is an important part of our future clean energy economy? 

As I discussed at my nomination hearing, 17 percent of Oklahoma's 

electricity is generated from wind, and as a state, we have a heavy emphasis 

201 
941 

on renewables in addition to oil and gas. Wind energy can be part of 

successful, diverse, energy portfolio. 

17.AWEA also found that the wind farms provided an additional $2.8 billion in 

societal benefits each year to Southwest Power and that the wind power helped 

save 3 billion in gallons of water in Oklahoma in 2013. The Windfall Coalition, a 

group created by Continental Resources Inc. founder and CEO Harold Hamm is 

trying to get rid of the Oklahoma's incentives for wind energy, as they believe it is 

a mature technology and doesn't need incentives. Do you support the Coalition's 

efforts? 

The decision on how to address state tax incentives for Oklahoma lies with 

the State Legislature and, ultimately, the Governor. 

18.According to the Wind Energy Association and Solar Energy Industries 

Association, in 2016 the United States had 400,000 wind and solar jobs-310,000 

solar, 88,000 wind. In contrast, according to 2016 DOE Energy Employment 

Report, employment in oil and gas extraction was 388,000 and 53,000 in coal 

mining. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) just found that coal 

production continued to decline in 2016 down nearly 17% from 2015 production. 

Its Annual Energy Outlook in 2017 reports that declining cost of natural gas is still 

encouraging utilities to shift away from coal over the long-term. The change is 

expected under our existing policies regardless of the Clean Power Plan. Do you 

believe that dismantling the Clean Power Plan and cutting back on environmental 

regulations will bring back the coal industry? Specifically, will it bring back coal 

jobs and make coal the dominate source of electricity in the U.S. again? 

I am unable to say whether United States utilities and electric cooperatives 

would or would not return to coal as a predominant portion of their fuel mix 

if the Clean Power Plan were revoked or other regulations were cut back. 

The federal Energy Information Administration projects that coal will be an 

important part of the American fuel mix for the foreseeable future. 

19. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to consult with an independent scientific 

body, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, on air quality standards. 

Congress has also directed EPA to establish and seek advice from an 

independent Science Advisory Board. Do you intend to deviate from the current 

appointment process for this advisory committee? Will you disclose professional 

and political affiliations and political contributions of members that you appoint to 

the committee? Do agree to maintain the existing structure of this committee and 

current rules that are in place for the decision making of this committee? 

I understand and appreciate the important role of EPA's independent 

scientific bodies. I have no first-hand knowledge of the existing processes 

or rules of the advisory committees referenced in the question and, if 

202 
942 

confirmed, I expect to learn more about these committees and commit to 

follow applicable legal authorities. 

20.1mproved environmental quality and economic growth aren't mutually 

exclusive. Since 2009, the states participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas 

Initiative (RGGI) have seen carbon pollution fall by 18% while their economies 

grew by 9.2%. Emissions in the other 41 states fell by 4% while their economies 

grew by 8.8%. Do you agree that RGGI has developed a successful model for 

growing our states' economies and cutting carbon pollution at the same time? Will 

you commit to maintaining funding levels for EPA grant programs that fund state 

level initiatives to reduce their emissions? 

While the agreement between the states participating in RGGI appears to be 

successful, what works for the Northeast may not achieve the same 

success in, for example, the Southwest. If confirmed, I look forward to 

working with EPA's budget staff and program offices to develop a budget 

focused on protecting human health and the environment for all 

populations. I will work to ensure that the limited resources appropriated to 

EPA by Congress are managed wisely in pursuit of that important mission 

and in accordance with all applicable legal authorities. 

21.EPA operates multiple networks to monitor compliance with the Clean Air Act's 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards and to track hazardous air pollutants 

regulated under the act. These networks include, among others, the State and 

Local Air Quality Monitoring Network, the National Air Monitoring Network (which 

targets areas of high population density with a variety of air pollution sources), 

Special Purpose Monitoring Stations (used for short-term studies and other 

purposes), Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (used to measure 

pollutants that contribute to ground-level ozone, a harmful air pollutant), and the 

National Air Toxics Trends Stations. During our meeting you mentioned a desire 

to increase resources for the Office of Research and Development, specifically 

mentioning monitoring equipment in non-attainment areas. What is your vision for 

monitoring? Do you plan to increase funding at EPA for these important 

monitoring networks? 

I agree that monitoring compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards is important to EPA's mission because it provides EPA with 

concrete and policy relevant data concerning the attainment status of 

communities throughout the country. If I am confirmed as Administrator, I 

expect to assess the Agency's resource usage and regulatory priorities and 

increased funding for air monitoring will be an area where I will consider 

deploying additional resources. 

22.Section 105 grants provide significant funding to states for implementing the 

Clean Air Act requirements. Beginning in FY 2017, EPA is proposing a new 

formula for how the 105 grants are distributed to each of the regional offices (and 

subsequently to the states). Region 1, where Rhode Island receives its funding 

from, will receive a smaller percentage of the total 105 funds under this revised 

203 
943 

formula. EPA is proposing an implementation approach that would limit regional 

losses to no more than 2.5% from each region's prior year amount. Region 1 will 

lose 2.5% for, at least, each of the next five fiscal years and possibly ten years, 

under this proposed approach. Will you commit to not implementing the new 

formula until and unless there is sufficient overall funding such that no Region will 

see reduced funding from the prior year's amount? 

If 1 am confirmed as Administrator, I will consider this and other resource 

allocation issues and will use my best efforts to ensure that regional funds 

are allocated equitably. 

23.The National Environmental Policy Act has been a bedrock of our nation's 

environmental laws, ensuring that the environmental and community impacts of 

major federal actions are properly understood, that alternatives are appropriately 

considered, and that the public has the opportunity to actively participate in the 

environmental review process. What is your view of NEPA and its associated 

regulations, and will you commit to ensuring that the law, including the processes 

it establishes to ensure meaningful public participation and informed decision 

making, is in no way weakened? 

I understand the National Environmental Policy Act established the White 

House Council on Environmental Quality and generally a process for 

considering the environmental impacts of federal actions. If confirmed, I will 

faithfully execute all applicable laws as Administrator. 

24. The EPA's Office of Civil Rights has a long history of failing to comply with the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964. To date, the office has never found a violation of Title VI, 

which prohibits recipients of federal funding from acting in discriminatory ways. It 

has also allowed complaints to linger for years without a response. What will you 

do to ensure compliance by the EPA with the Civil Rights Act and to improve the 

track record of the Office of Civil Rights? 

If confirmed as Administrator, I would expect to be briefed by staff and 

review any recommendations by the Office of Inspector General before 

taking action on this issue. 

25. EPA and States are co-implementers of many of our federal environmental 

laws and programs. We believe that the tools used to implement these programs 

should be updated, particularly at the State level, to ensure effective 

implementation. Are there approaches, systems, or tools that you have 

considered to improve these programs and investments you would like to make in 

improvements that would benefit both federal and state environmental programs? 

As I testified in the hearing, I have pursued opportunities to address 

interstate environmental quality matters. One of the examples I have 

highlighted is the work that Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel and 

204 
944 

1 took to address an enforceable water quality standard between Arkansas 

and Oklahoma. I have also discussed how Texas should be responsible 

when air quality issues affect Oklahoma and my experience with that. When 

negotiations among and between states breakdown EPA has a role to set 

environmental standards. However, that is should be a last course of action 

instead of the first. I believe environmental statutes are designed with states 

as a primary implementer. Environmental statutes envision that states have 

the delegated enforcement and primacy to implement and enforce 

environmental statutes. Only when that is not happening or when 

negotiations between and among states breakdown should EPA determine a 

dispute and only after attempting to assist states negotiate a local solution. 

I am fond of saying that we need national standards and neighborhood 

solutions. I think that should shape the work of the EPA. 

26. Under Section 111 (b) of the Clean Air Act ("CAA"), in 2012, EPA issued New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS) to limit emissions of VOCs from new, 

reconstructed, and modified sources in the oil and gas industry and finalized the 

rule in August of 2015. EPA developed a regulatory impact analysis of the 

regulation that estimated that the final standards for new and modified methane 

sources will yield benefits of $690 million in 2025, which will outweigh estimated 

costs of $530 million in 2025. Do you disagree with EPA's regulatory analysis? If 

you do, can you specify what information and analytics you use to justify your 

position? 

I am familiar with the rule and understand that regulatory impact analyses 

play an important role in the EPA's rulemaking process. I also understand 

certain statutes, executive orders, and federal guidance documents inform 

the development of regulatory impact analyses. If confirmed, I commit to 

work with EPA staff to ensure regulatory impact analyses follow the relevant 

legal authorities. 

27.1n 2009, as mandated by the Supreme Court and backed by a robust scientific 

and technical review, the Environmental Protection Agency produced the 

Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) 

under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. It found six greenhouse gases- carbon 

dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur 

hexafluoride -"taken in combination endanger both the public health and the 

public welfare of current and future generations." You challenged the 

endangerment finding in court and lost. Do you agree with the EPA's finding? Do 

you commit to not take any steps as Administrator to narrow the scope or 

otherwise weaken this finding? 

If confirmed, I will fulfill the duties of the Administrator consistent with 

Massachusetts v. EPA and the agency's Endangerment Finding on 

Greenhouse Gases respective of the relative statutory framework 

established by Congress. To my knowledge, there is nothing currently 

205 
945 

pending before the EPA that would require I take any additional actions on 

the Endangerment Finding and if there were, it would not be wise to 

prejudge the outcome. 

28.There appears to be clear benefit from the regulation of methane emissions 

from the oil and gas sector. Can you discuss your views on the techniques used in 

the regulatory impact analysis for the NSPS for new oil and gas wells to quantify 

the cost and benefits of the regulation? Do you commit to maintaining the same 

metrics like emissions reductions, monetized climate benefits and health cobenefits, economic effects, employment benefits when designing new 

rulemakings? 

I am familiar with the role and understand that regulatory impact analyses 

play an important role in the EPA's rulemaking proc(!ss. I also understand 

certain statutes, executive orders, and federal guidance documents inform 

the development of regulatory impact analyses. If confirmed, I commit to 

work with EPA staff to ensure regulatory impact analyses follow relevant 

legal authorities. 

29.The regulatory impact analysis for the methane emissions estimates that the 

rule could also reduce 210,000 short tons of ozone-forming VOCs in 2025, along 

with 3,900 tons of air taxies, such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene. 

Industry frequently talks about the costs to polluters of meeting public health 

standards while ignoring the costs to people harmed by the effects of pollution like 

the formation of ozone. Do you believe EPA should look at only the costs to the 

polluters when undertaking its regulatory impact analysis? Should the costs to 

families, such as children sent to emergency rooms due to asthma attacks 

triggered by smog, be included in the analysis? If so, should those costs be given 

a different weight than those claimed by industry? 

I am familiar with the rule and understand that regulatory impact analyses 

play an important role in the EPA's rulemaking process. I also understand 

certain statutes, executive orders, and federal guidance documents inform 

the development of regulatory impact analyses. If confirmed, I commit to 

work with EPA staff to ensure regulatory impact analyses follow relevant 

legal authorities. 

30.As you know, methane emissions from industry are as much as 90% higher 

than EPA had initially estimated, as has been demonstrated by academic peerreviewed studies. New information is currently being sent to EPA, as part of the 

Information Collection Request (ICR), on methane emissions from existing 

sources. How do you plan to use the information collected? How do you plan to 

lead the agency in addressing this significant spike in known methane emissions? 

Section 114 of the CAA provides the Administrator of the EPA to collect 

emissions data from existing sources. If confirmed, I will review the ICR 

206 
946 

currently underway regarding methane emissions and examine the 

submitted data to determine the appropriate next steps. 

31.You have been quoted previously, "my concern is that EPA is employing its 

flawed methodology in order to rationalize new and unjustified federal regulations 

to solve a methane-emissions problem that simply does not exist." Science has 

shown us that methane's effect on climate change is up to 34 times greater than 

that of C02 when averaged over a 100-year time period and even greater when 

considered over the first 20 years after it is emitted. Additionally, a recent 

Geophysical Research Letter article found that the U.S. could be responsible for 

the 30% to 60% increase in atmospheric methane emissions since 2002. Can you 

clarify what you mean that a methane-emissions problem does not exist? Do you 

refute the argument that human's development of oil and gas has led to more 

methane emissions? The U.S., Canada, and Mexico have all pledged to work 

together in reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector between 40% 

to 45% by 2025. If you are confirmed as Administrator, do you intend to work with 

the State Department to honor our international methane commitments? 

It is my understanding that even EPA's revised methane data shows a 

decrease in methane emissions from oil and natural gas development since 

2005, during a time period of a large increase in domestic energy 

development. EPA's data is based on a number of assumptions that, if 

confirmed, I will review carefully prior to making any prejudgments of future 

actions. 

32.The State Department and others have assessed life-cycle emissions for 

various crude oils and found tar sands crude is one of the dirtiest crudes on the 

planet from a GHG perspective. Do you agree tar sands crude has significantly 

higher life-cycle emissions than Oklahoma Sweet and most other crude oils? 

The lifetime emissions of any energy source should be considered in the 

context of necessary extraction techniques as well as transportation of the 

fuel, among other issues. For example, transporting crude via pipeline 

clearly creates fewer emissions than transporting it via other sources in 

terms of fossil fuel energy. Without knowing the specifics of all of these 

factors in a given instance, it is difficult to identify which sources may result 

in greater emissions. 

33.The State Department conducted a comprehensive economic and 

environmental analysis of the project and determined that under the current 

market conditions and those projected for the next few years, Keystone XL is key 

to getting tar sands crude to market. The EPA agreed with this conclusion. Do you 

agree? If not, why? 

207 
947 

I am not familiar with the State Department study but with over 2.4 million 

miles of pipeline in the United States as well as other transportation 

methods for moving goods and energy resources it is my understanding 

that oil sands development has continued despite the lack of approval for 

the Keystone XL's cross-border permit. 

34.Many of Keystone XL's proponents suggested that rejecting the project would 

simply divert more tar sands to rail to the Gulf Coast. Were you aware that 

according to the Energy Information Administration, shipments of Canadian crude 

by rail to the Gulf Coast have declined since Keystone XL was rejected, from 

64,000 barrels per day in 2015 to 45,000 barrels per day in 2016? 

I am not familiar with that particular EIA data. 

35.The State Department found that the emissions associated with the production, 

refining and combustion of the tar sands in Keystone XL would result in 147 to 

168 million metric tons (MMT) C02e per year (equivalent to the emissions from as 

many as 35.5 million cars). The State Department also found that by displacing 

conventional crude with dirtier tar sands, the project would result in 1.3- 27.4 

MMT C02e of additional emissions (equivalent to the emissions from as many as 

5.7 million cars). Do you agree? If you disagree, please identify any research 

studies or experts you have consulted to form your opinion. 

I am familiar with multiple State Department determinations that the 

Keystone XL pipeline would not significantly impact climate change. 

36.1n a recent study, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded that 

diluted bitumen-the type of crude that would be primarily transported by 

Keystone XL-has a series of properties that, taken together, make tar sands 

spills of greater concern for spill responders than spills of other, commonly 

transported crude oils. Both EPA and the Coast Guard advised the scientists on 

the NAS committee. Do you agree with their conclusion that tar sands spills pose 

greater risks and challenges for spill responders than other crude oil spills? If you 

disagree, please identify any research studies or experts you have consulted to 

form your opinion. 

Diluted bitumen has been transported safely by pipeline in the United States 

for more than 40 years. It is my understanding that he NAS report did not 

infer that the Keystone XL pipeline posed significant concerns or that 

diluted bitumen could not be safely transported via pipelines or other forms 

of transportation. 

37.The NAS committee also found that there are no known, effective strategies for 

recovering tar sands bitumen than has been spilled in a waterbody and sunk. Do 

208 
948 

you agree? If you disagree, please identify any research studies or experts you 

have consulted to form your opinion. 

I have no information in supporting or challenging this assertion. 

38. The NAS committee also found that regulations and agency practices do not 

take the unique properties of diluted bitumen tar sands into account, nor do they 

encourage effective planning for spills of diluted bitumen. Do you agree? If you 

disagree, please identify any research studies or experts you have consulted to 

form your opinion. 

EPA is not the primary regulator of pipelines, this question would more 

appropriately be posed to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration. 

39.The State Department's EIS found that Keystone XL's leak detection system is 

unlikely to identify leaks smaller than half a million gallons a day. Given the 

increased risks of tar sands spills and Keystone XL's proposed route through the 

Ogallala aquifer, should the EPA play an active role in ensuring that the water our 

nation's ranchers and farmers rely on is protected? 

EPA should play an active role in ensuring protection of our domestic water 

supply. 

40.The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has raised concerns regarding 

the effect that Keystone XL and the tar sands it carries will have on the air quality 

of Gulf Coast refinery communities. Do you believe that the EPA should take a 

role to ensure that projects like Keystone XL do not put our communities at risk of 

asthma, cancer and other serious illnesses? 

I am aware that EPA has a role in implementing the National Environmental 

Policy Act, and other statutory responsibilities as it relates to infrastructure 

projects like pipelines. If confirmed as Administrator, I will work to faithfully 

execute the Jaws EPA is responsible for administering in order to protect 

human health and the environment for all Americans. 

41. Do you believe that Native Americans, landowners, farmers, ranchers and 

communities affected by projects like Keystone XL should have the opportunity to 

have their concerns considered and address as part of an environmental review 

process? 

Yes. 

209 
949 

42.Based on the climate change implications, spill potential, and other factors, the 

Obama Administration determined Keystone XL isn't in our nation's best interest. 

Do you agree? If not, why? 

While the Obama Administration failed to grant the cross-border permit 

required to complete the Keystone XL pipeline, much of the pipeline was 

built in accordance with applicable laws and permits both federal and state. 

A large portion of the Keystone XL pipeline safely operates through 

Oklahoma and I believe that safely and efficiently moving natural resources 

through the country is very important. 

43.1f confirmed, do you commit to ensuring EPA fully considers and articulates the 

environmental implications, based on the best-available science and in 

accordance with EPA's authority under the National Environmental Policy Act, 

when determining how to proceed on the Keystone XL Pipeline and any other 

projects? 

If confirmed, I will faithfully execute all applicable laws as Administrator. 

44.According to EPA 49% of coal units lack the most advanced NOx controls 

(Selective Catalytic Reduction systems or SCR). Several units that have SCR or 

other NOx emission control technology installed are not optimizing their use. For 

example, these six coal units have SCR installed but are not using it to optimize 

NOx reductions. In 2015, these facilities' NOx emissions were significantly higher 

than 2009 because they are not using the systems they have in place to reduce 

NOx. EPA estimates it costs facilities $500/ton NOx pollution to optimize the 

reduction of NOx from an SCR and $1300/ton to restart a SCR unit. Do you think 

these facilities should be regulated to keep on their NOx controls on? 

If I am confirmed as Administrator, I will consider all matters presented to 

me with an open mind and will work to reach conclusions that are reflected 

in the administrative record of each matter and that comport with 

Congress's intent in enacting the Act. That includes evaluating your 

concerns regarding the use of post-combustion NOx controls if and when 

they are presented to me in a matter before the Agency. 

45.1ndustry frequently talks about the costs to polluters of meeting public health 

standards while ignoring the costs to people harmed by the effects of pollution. In 

Rhode Island these effects cannot be ignored as we seen them through rising 

seas and bad air days for Rhode Islanders. Because Rhode Island ozone air 

quality issues are largely due to transported emissions from upwind states leading 

to ozone formation that pollutes the air and lungs of people in downwind states 

like mine. Over the past two years in Rhode Island, the 8-hour standard ozone 

standard exceeded 0.07 ppm 10 times in 2015 and 6 times in 2016. With respect 

210 
950 

to ozone, do you believe EPA should look at only the costs to the polluters when 

undertaking its regulatory impact analysis? Should the costs to families, such as 

children sent to emergency rooms due to asthma attacks triggered by smog, be 

included in the analysis? If so, should those costs be given a different weight than 

those claimed by industry? 

Under the Clean Air Act, while setting NAAQS for criteria pollutants, cost 

cannot be considered. This is because human health is the primary focus of 

these standards. EPA's regulatory impact analyses have typically 

addressed what you describe as "costs to families" in the benefits portion 

of the analysis (i.e., the value of public health and environmental effects 

avoided). 

46.EPA's independent science advisers, leading medical groups like the American 

Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Thoracic 

Society, American Lung Association, American Heart Association, and leading 

public-interest groups such as the NAACP called for a 60 ppb standard instead of 

the 70 ppb standard EPA finalized last year. What was your scientific basis for 

concluding that the old standard, 75 ppb, was sufficient to protect public health? 

Can you explain what sources you consulted? What groups you discussed this 

with? 

Due to a number of factors and steps taken by the previous Administration, 

implementation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS did not begin until years later. 

States had only recently begun to implement the 75ppb standard for 

ground-level ozone when EPA changed it; considering that approximately 

40 percent of the country was in nonattainment for the 2008 standard, I 

believe EPA should focus on helping those areas meet that standard. 

Oklahoma's challenge to the most recent ozone NAAQS was based, in part, 

on concerns that EPA has not adequately assessed the available science. It 

is EPA's obligation to properly justify any change to an existing NAAQS. 

47.Rhode Island ozone air quality issues are largely due to transported emissions 

from upwind states leading to ozone formation that pollutes the air and lungs of 

people in downwind states like mine. The Rhode Island Department of 

Environmental Management told me that there remain a number of power plants 

located in upwind states that have pollution control equipment installed to reduce 

nitrogen oxides emissions that either do not use that equipment during the ozone 

season or do not use it in a way that optimizes the reduction of nitrogen oxides 

emissions. Why would this be the case? 

I am unfamiliar with the specifics as to why certain sources upwind of 

Rhode Island may not be using control devices in particular ways. CSAPR 

and related rules are designed to address emissions from upwind states 

21 I 
951 

that significantly contribute to nonattainment in downwind states. EPA 

presumably considered emissions from the upwind power plants referenced 

in your question in formulating the existing requirements. 

48.Each year, RIDEM issues "ozone alerts" to warn vulnerable Rhode Islanders to 

stay indoors to protect their health on hot days when air quality is poor. This is a 

problem that cannot be solved in the state because masses of polluted air are 

coming from upwind. The health of Rhode Island citizens depends on a strong 

federal EPA program to impose pollution controls on NOx, particulates, and other 

mobile and stationary sources of pollution. What will you do to support the federal 

air quality programs? Will you commit to keep existing funding levels for the clean 

air programs that impose and regulate pollution controls and protect Rhode 

Islanders? 

If confirmed, I will work to administer the statute and applicable federal 

programs in accordance with Congressional intent. I look forward to 

working with EPA's budget staff and program offices to develop a budget 

focused on fulfilling EPA's mission to protect human health and the 

environment for all populations. I will work to ensure that the resources 

appropriated to EPA by Congress are managed wisely in pursuit of the 

Agency's important mission and in accordance with all applicable legal 

authorities. 

49.0zone levels in Rl are strongly affected by the transport of pollutants emitted in 

upwind states into Rl. Although Rl is currently designated as an 

unclassifiable/attainment area for the ozone NAAQS, monitored ozone levels in 

the State still exceed the standard on a number of days in the summer months. 

The Ozone Transport Region (OTR) states, including Rl, have implemented a 

number of programs to reduce pollutant emissions from mobile and stationary 

sources in their states, as required by the Clean Air Act (CAA). Rl and other OTR 

states were required by the CAA to implement emissions control programs not 

mandated in upwind states, resulting in increased energy costs and an inequitable 

economic burden to industry in the OTR states. Any additional emissions 

reduction programs that could be adopted in the OTR to further reduce ozone 

levels in the region would be less cost-effective than implementing OTR controls 

in upwind states and would further this inequity. What steps will you take to 

address the transport of pollutants emitted in upwind states that contribute to 

exceedances of the ozone standard in Rl and other OTR states? 

Interstate transport of pollutants is a concern. An upwind state that 

contributes to a downwind state's inability to meet air quality standards 

should take responsibility. It is EPA's responsibility to address such issues, 

and, if confirmed, I look forward to working on this issue. 

212 
952 

50.The intent of the establishment of the RFS in the Energy Policy Act was to 

enhance U.S. energy security by displacing some imported petroleum with 

domestically produced ethanol. In your estimation, has the RFS reduced imports 

of foreign oil? 

As Congress indicated in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007, domestic production of renewable fuel contributes to our nation's 

"greater energy independence and security." 

51.President-elect Trump has said, 'The RFS, which is Renewable Fuel Standard, 

is an important tool in the mission to achieve energy independence for the United 

States. I will do all that is in my power as president to achieve that goal... .Energy 

independence is a requirement of America's to become great again. My theme is 

"Make America Great Again"; it's an important part of it." Do you hold the same 

beliefs as President-elect Trump about the RFS? If not, can you be specific where 

your views differ on this policy? 

As Congress indicated in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007, domestic production of renewable fuel contributes to our nation's 

"greater energy independence and security." To that end, if confirmed, I will 

work to administer the RFS program in accordance with statute and 

Congressional intent. 

52.Agricufture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who has been supportive of the RFS, made 

a statement in Bloomberg Markets, "There's going to be a lot of saber-rattling, but 

it supports too many jobs and too much rural infrastructure is set up for it. The 

Renewable Fuel Standard is solid." Do you agree that the RFS has supported 

jobs . and helped develop our rural infrastructure? 

Yes. 

53. You have been quoted, "It should come as no surprise that I am working 

diligently with Oklahoma energy companies, the people of Oklahoma and the 

majority of attorneys general to fight the unlawful overreach of the EPA and other 

federal agencies." Do you think that the renewable fuel standard is one of those 

unlawful overreach regulations from the EPA? Can you explain in more detail the 

type of overreach you are talking about when it comes to the EPA and other 

federal agencies? 

The RFS was first enacted by Congress in 2005 and updated and expanded 

in 2007 to promote domestic production and achieve energy independence. 

Therefore, I do not consider it to be "one of those unlawful overreach 

regulations from the EPA." The EPA needs to better administer this program 

213 
953 

to provide involved entities with the certainty they need, and, if confirmed, i 

will administer the RFS in accordance with statute and Congressional 

intent. 

54. You have been quoted in the press saying, "The American people are tired of 

seeing billions of dollars drained from our economy due to unnecessary EPA 

regulations, and I intend to run this agency in a way that fosters both responsible 

protection of the environment and freedom for American businesses." Do you see 

the RFS as one of those unnecessary EPA regulations that is draining money 

from our economy? 

The RFS was first enacted by Congress in 2005 and updated and expanded 

in 2007 to promote domestic production and achieve energy independence. 

The EPA needs to better administer this program to provide involved 

entities with the certainty they need, and, if confirmed, I will administer the 

RFS in accordance with statute and Congressional intent. 

55.The RFS has been a significant factor in growing the volumes of biodiesel and 

other advanced biofuels. In light of the uncertainty surrounding the Biodiesel Tax 

Credit and the increased volume of biodiesel imported from Argentina, do you 

intend to support the RFS and continue to increase the Renewable Volume 

Obligations (RVOs) that provide the long term market stability to support 

investment and increase the jobs available in a growing domestic industry? Do 

you commit to making all economic and pricing models used in developing the 

annual blending targets under the RFS available to the public? If you come across 

models that were used in the past that were left out of the public record, will you 

make those available? Do you intend to use EIA data in conjunction with your 

administration of the RFS? Are there other data sources that you intend to rely 

on? 

If confirmed, I will administer the RFS in accordance with statute and 

Congressional intent. There has been significant investment that has gone 

into the infrastructure following the enactment of the RFS in 2005, and these 

individuals need certainty that the EPA has failed to provide in the past, 

from the trading program to monitoring the fraud in the system, to faith that 

the program will be enforced and administered as Congress intended. The 

Clean Air Act requires the Administrator of the EIA to submit annual 

projections of transportation fuel, biomass-based diesel, and cellulosic 

biofuel to be sold or introduced into commerce into the United States, and 1 

will commit to continue relying on EtA data projections to set annual volume 

obligations. 

56. It has been estimated that the RFS supports roughly 850,000 jobs across the 

country and many of those jobs rely on certainty from the EPA setting its volume 

214 
954 

requirements for the renewable fuels each year. If confirmed to serve as EPA 

Administrator, will you carry out the Energy Policy Act as passed in 2005 and 

updated in 2007, particularly adopting the statutory volume requirements for 

renewable fuels? 

Section 211 (0) of the Clean Air Act contains enumerated tables of applicable 

target volumes of renewable fuel for calendar years 2006 through 2022. If 

confirmed, I will work to administer the RFS program in accordance with 

statute and Congressional intent. 

57.The RFS has driven investment in low carbon biofuels in our country. Are you 

committed to working to achieve the gains in advanced and cellulosic biofuels 

promised under the statue? 

Section 211 (0) of the Clean Air Act contains enumerated tables of applicable 

target volumes of renewable fuel, specifically cellulosic and advanced, for 

calendar years 2006 through 2022. If confirmed, I will work to administer this 

program in accordance with statute and Congressional intent. 

58. Following the Sixth Circuit's stay of the Clean Water Rule in 2015 pending 

further court action, the EPA and Army Corps issued a joint memorandum that 

states the agencies 1) "look forward to vigorously defending the merits of the 

Clean Water Rule, which we continue to believe is fully consistent with the law 

and based on the best available peer-reviewed science," 2) "intend to move 

forward with measures to improve implementation of the national CWA section 

404 program that were announced concurrent with the Rule," 3) will continue their 

commitment to improve transparency through making section 404 decisions public 

and making a number of other improvements to the section 404 permit program, 

4) strengthen coordination between the agencies, and 5) "work closely with the 

Department of Justice to ensure [their] actions remain consistent with the stay." If 

confirmed as EPA Administrator, will you uphold the tenets of this memorandum? 

If not, what would you change in the EPA's pursuance of clean water and 

cooperative relationship with the Army Corps of Engineers? Will you commit to 

working collaboratively with the Army Corps under its corresponding section 404 

and other Clean Water Act authorities to ensure clean water for all Americans? If 

confirmed as EPA Administrator, would you advise DOJ to stop defending the rule 

and instead ask the court to set aside the rule and send it back to the agencies for 

reconsideration? Do you disagree with the process the EPA used in developing 

the Clean Water Rule, which involved incorporating the best available science and 

feedback received through around 400 public meetings and over 1 million public 

comments? 

If confirmed I will support efforts of the Corp to improve transparency 

through making section 404 decisions public and to strengthen 

215 
955 

coordination between the agencies. However, I do not support the WOTUS 

rule and do not believe that it is consistent with the Clean Water 

Act. Accordingly, if confirmed, I will take appropriate steps, in accordance 

with the Administrative Procedure Act, to withdraw the rule and replace it 

with a rule that is within the authority granted to EPA and the Corps under 

the Clean Water Act and is promulgated in compliance with the APA, the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, Executive Order 13132 on 

Federalism, and Executive Order 12866 on regulatory planning and review, 

procedural requirements that I believe were not met in the promulgation of 

the WOTUS rule. If confirmed, I also would inform the appropriate courts of 

these actions. 

59. In the wake of SWANCC, Rapanos, and other decisions, how would you 

shape regulations and internal EPA policy to provide more certainty for regulated 

parties on how the agency will make section 404 permitting decisions? 

EPA does not make 404 permitting decisions. Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act grants that authority to the Secretary of the Army, who carries it 

out acting through the Corps of Engineers. Under section 404(c) EPA has 

the authority to veto a Corps-issued permit if it EPA determines the 

discharge will have unacceptable adverse effects. If confirmed, I will seek 

to clarify when it is appropriate for EPA to use its 404 veto authority. 

60.1f you choose to pursue a renewed rulemaking to clarify "waters of the United 

States," will you follow the same procedure and commit to at least the same level 

of outreach the EPA undertook in developing the Clean Water Rule in developing 

a new rule? 

If confirmed, I will ensure that the outreach performed by EPA is not only 

extensive, but meaningful. 

61.Extreme weather events put water and wastewater infrastructure at risk. In 

Rhode Island, Super Storm Sandy almost caused Narragansett Bay to breach the 

water supply for the City of Newport. The March 2010, storms flooded the 

Pawtuxet River, overtopping the Warwick Wastewater Treatment facility and 

sending untreated wastewater into surrounding neighborhoods, the River and 

Narragansett Bay. What do you see as EPA's role in helping cities and towns 

respond to these increasingly frequent extreme weather events and ensure the 

safety of the nation's critical water and wastewater infrastructure? 

216 
956 

EPA provides water and wastewater infrastructure assistance through the 

Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act revolving loan funds and 

through the new WIFIA loan program. 

62.What role can green infrastructure play in helping municipalities manage and 

prevent sewer overflows and other storm water and wastewater treatment 

concerns? 

Green infrastructure is a neighborhood solution that can help meet national 

standards. 

63.1n making recommendations for revisions to state shares of Clean Water State 

Revolving Fund (CWSRF) money, do you support increasing allocations for states 

with the oldest infrastructure? 

No. I am not aware of any analysis that suggests that age of infrastructure is 

an appropriate metric that predicts funding needs for wastewater 

infrastructure. It was not suggested in the May 2016 Report to Congress 

from EPA on its review of the CWSRF allotment formula, required by section 

5005 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) of 

2014. I also note that the formula is established by law and only Congress 

can change it. 

64.Sea level in Newport, Rl has risen over 10 inches since 1930, Rhode Island 

experiences significantly more rain and more intense storms than in past 

decades, and Superstorm Sandy and the Flood of 2010 destroyed roads and 

buildings. The Rl Department of Environmental Management is finalizing an 

assessment of the vulnerability of each wastewater treatment facility in the state 

from damage due to flooding and storm surge. Will states have the ability to 

choose to use State Revolving Fund monies to finance resiliency projects under 

the next Administration? What restrictions, if any, would you foresee putting on 

the use of these funds for this purpose? 

The eligibilities for the use of CWSRF funds are established in the Clean 

Water Act. If confirmed, I will manage that program as authorized by 

Congress. 

65.States rely on EPA funding, technical assistance, and other resources to help 

keep the air, water, and soil clean, particularly through the State and Tribal 

Assistance Grants and Categorical Grants. State agencies like the RIDEM have 

delegated authority to carry out federal pollution control laws. Based on what you 

know about the EPA, do you believe states and tribes are getting enough money 

from the federal government to support clean air and clean water investments and 

217 
957 

enforcement? If confirmed, will you commit to ensuring states and tribes continue 

to receive at least the amounts of funding they do now? Are there programs that 

support states and tribes that you would consider cutting or increasing financial 

support for? 

I support the federalism structure of our federal environmental laws, which 

includes state delegation or authorization of most programs, and EPA STAG 

grants to help states implement those programs. If confirmed, I will seek to 

reduce the workload on states by refraining from adding more and more 

requirements for them to implement and to instead allow them to focus on 

implementing core environmental programs relating to air, water, and 

waste. I am not familiar with the development of EPA's FY 2018 budget so I 

cannot comment on that proposal, but please be assured that I support 

funding for states. 

66.A 2016 Associated Press study of EPA data identified Providence, Rl as "one 

of the largest [drinking water systems] in the country to exceed a federal lead 

standard since 2013." Almost 20 percent of all retail customers' homes were 

found to be serviced by utility-owned lead lines. EPA's lead limit before corrective 

action is required is currently 15 parts per billion. The city's water supply was 

found to be over this limit six times since 2010. Providence's water hit 30 parts per 

billion in tests in 2009 and 2013. Providence has shown marked improvement 

since those peaks, but there is still millions of dollars of investment needed in the 

city's drinking water infrastructure to reduce the risk of lead. What role do you 

believe EPA should play supporting these investments? 

I would urge the City to explore funding opportunities available from the 

new WIFIA loan program, which is implemented by EPA. 

67.What have you done in your career to demonstrate lead contamination of 

drinking water will be a priority if you are confirmed as EPA Administrator? Please 

cite specific examples. 

I am concerned about children's health, but the Oklahoma Department of 

Environmental Quality and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board have 

primary responsibility for implementing and enforcing environmental laws 

in Oklahoma, so issues relating to lead contamination of drinking water 

would fall within their responsibilities. If confirmed as Administrator, I will 

faithfully execute all environmental laws enacted by Congress, including the 

Safe Drinking Water Act. 

68.1n an interview with the Providence Journal last April, Rhode Island's chief of 

the Center for Drinking Water Quality at the Rl Department of Health stated that 

"[i]n the last monitoring period, we had six small water systems exceed the lead 

action level. Five were school systems." These systems were brought back into 

218 
958 

compliance, but the concern remains. How will you prioritize lead abatement in 

schools and among the most vulnerable populations? 

If confirmed, I will fully carry out EPA's authorities, including its authorities 

under the Safe Drinking Water Act. I note that in the WIIN Act, Congress 

amended the Safe Drinking Water Act to authorize funding for voluntary 

school lead testing. If confirmed and if funding is provided, I will carry out 

that program. 

69.EPA's regulations on lead in drinking water, otherwise known as the Lead and 

Copper Rule, were last revised in 2007. In its October 2016 white paper on 

revising the rule, the EPA recognized "[t)here is a compelling need to modernize 

and strengthen implementation of the rule-to strengthen its public health 

protections and to clarify its implementation requirements to make it more 

effective and more readily enforceable." Do you agree the Rule is in need of 

updating to reflect the latest science? 

Yes. 

70.Do you believe all covered water systems should follow EPA's drinking water 

analytical methods when testing drinking water for contamination? If so, what 

efforts will you undertake to ensure all water systems are brought into 

compliance? 

If confirmed, I will fully carry out EPA's authorities, including its authorities 

under the Safe Drinking Water Act. To achieve this, I will focus on EPA's 

core missions, such as provision of safe drinking water. 

71.1n a November 2016 interview with the New York Times, President-elect 

Trump specifically called out "crystal clear water" as a priority. Do you agree 

"crystal clear water" should be a priority of the EPA? If so, please list the specific 

steps you would take as Administrator to make the President-elect's vision a 

reality. 

Yes, I agree that clean water is a priority of the EPA. If confirmed, I will 

ensure that EPA focuses on the core missions as directed under laws 

enacted by Congress, including clean water and safe drinking water. 

72.0ver 40,000 water bodies in the United States are considered "impaired" under 

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, meaning they do not meet water quality 

and health standards. Six hundred and thirty-five of these are in Oklahoma. What 

specifics steps did you take as Attorney General and as a state legislator to 

improve the water quality in these impaired waters in Oklahoma? 

219 
959 

Regulation of water quality in Oklahoma is the responsibility of Oklahoma's 

environmental regulators at agencies like the Oklahoma Water Resources 

Board and Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. Those agencies 

would be best situated to describe the actions taken by Oklahoma to 

improve water quality in impaired waters. 

73.What clean water initiatives undertaken by the EPA in the last five years do 

you support? 

I support the Mach 2011 nutrient framework issued by the Assistant 

Administrator for the Office of Water entitled "Working in Partnership with 

States to Address Phosphorus and Nitrogen Pollution through Use of a 

Framework for State Nutrient Reductions," which prioritizes state action to 

encourage on the ground activities over establishment of numeric nutrient 

limits. I support EPA's May 20121ntegrated Municipal Stormwater and 

Wastewater Planning Framework, which directs EPA enforcement and 

permitting officials to allow municipalities to integrate multiple CWA 

responsibilities in a single plan and prioritize the actions with the greatest 

health and environmental benefits, and to allow extended compliance 

schedules to carry out that prioritization. I support EPA's efforts to promote 

green infrastructure to meet Clean Water Act requirements. Green 

infrastructure can be a neighborhood solution to meet national standards. 

support the new Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loan 

program authorized by Congress in 2014 that recently received its first 

appropriations. The WIFIA program creates tremendous opportunities to 

increase water and wastewater infrastructure investment because every 

federal dollar appropriated can leverage as much as $60 in infrastructure 

investments. 

74.How will you address EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

permitting backlog without undermining any environmental protections or 

subverting the goals of the Clean Water Act? 

First, I would note that at the end of FY 2016, 96.9 percent of Oklahoma's 

permits were current. Making sure permits are current is one of core 

functions under the statutory responsibilities given to EPA and in turn 

carried out by authorized states. However, in recent years states have been 

asked to shift their focus and resources to other activities. If confirmed, I 

would return EPA's focus to ensuring that core functions under our 

environmental laws are carried out. 

75.Factory farming of animals is known to cause multiple forms of pollution, such 

as contaminating local groundwater with nitrates, contributing to hypoxia and 

"dead zones" in rivers and coastal waters, and releasing the potent greenhouse 

220 
960 

gas methane. Considering your close ties with the animal agriculture industry in 

Oklahoma, your previous history of unsuccessfully prosecuting lawsuits against 

states with animal welfare laws, your opposition of EPA's attempt to conduct a 

survey of CAFOs, and your pursuit of punitive yet failed investigations of nonprofit 

advocacy groups working for animal welfare, do you believe you should recuse 

yourself from any decisions related to enforcing the CWA and CAA to the fullest 

extent of the law against these facilities? If not, will you commit to disclosing to the 

EPW Committee any solicitations you have made to interested parties before you 

make any decisions related to this topic? If not, what assurances can you provide 

that you will be able to discharge your duties in this area impartially? 

If confirmed, I will faithfully execute the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act 

as enacted by Congress. My track record with regard to CAFOs, which 

includes suing a CAFO together with EPA and collecting what EPA at the 

time said was the largest civil penalty ever assessed against a CAFO for 

CWA violations, demonstrates that I can, and will, approach such issues 

with a fair and open mind. 

76.Explain your reasons for opposing EPA's 2012 attempt to conduct a survey of 

CAFOs. Has your thinking changed since then? Please explain why or why not. 

For the purpose of this response, I am assuming that you are referring to 

EPA's 2011 proposed animal feeding operation reporting rule, published at 

76 Fed. Reg. 65431 (October 21, 2011), and the January 19, 2012 comments 

on that proposed rule filed by 12 state attorneys general, including myself. 

This proposed rule is an example of an attempt to impose new regulatory 

requirements without complying with either the law or proper administrative 

process. Under the Clean Water Act, only facilities that discharge pollutants 

can be regulated. Despite this limitation on EPA's authority, it had twice 

before attempted to regulate non-discharging facilities. In 2005, the Second 

Circuit vacated parts of EPA's 2003 CAFO rule that purported to require 

non-discharging CAFOs to apply for permits. Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 399 F. 3d 486. In 2011, the 

Fifth Circuit vacated the part of EPA's 2008 CAFO rule that would have 

required all CAFOs "proposing to discharge" to apply for NPDES permits 

regardless of whether they had actual discharges. National Pork Producers 

Council v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 635 F. 3d 738 

(5th Cir. 2011 ). Further, EPA's authority to require reporting (section 308 of 

the CWA) applies only to point sources that discharge. That was made clear 

by the 8th Circuit in Service Oil, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 

590 F. 3d 545 (8th Cir. 2009). Despite the clear limitations of the Clean Water 

Act, in the CAFO reporting rule EPA proposed to require facilities that are 

not subject to the Clean Water Act to submit reports to EPA. As such, that 

proposed rule exceeded EPA's authority. 

221 
961 

??.According to the CDC, in 2014 Oklahoma reported the second highest rate of 

exposure to pesticides in the nation. At a time when pesticide/herbicide usage is 

on the rise across the country, how would you protect American workers, 

consumers, and landscapes from the toxic effects of agricultural chemicals? 

I am not personally familiar with the data referenced in this question or 

generally the rate of pesticide usage in Oklahoma. If confirmed as 

Administrator, I would expect to be briefed by EPA staff before taking action 

on this issue and would work to ensure EPA followed all applicable legal 

requirements and made its decisions based on sound science in an open 

and transparent process. 

78.Your close ties to the fossil fuel industry have given a strong appearance of 

pay-to-play politics favorable to that industry. As you well know, the agrichemical 

and seed biotechnology industry has a similar history of major lobbying, campaign 

financing, and maintaining close relationships with lawmakers and agency 

administrators. Monsanto, the Oklahoma Farm Bureau, and other agricultural 

interests contributed more than $90,000 to your previous campaigns. Do you 

believe you should recuse yourself from any decisions related to this industry? If 

not, will you commit to disclosing to the EPW Committee any solicitations you 

have made to interested parties before you make any decisions related to this 

topic? If not, what assurances can you provide that you will be able to discharge 

your duties in this area impartially? 

It is my understanding that recusal obligations do not extend to regulatory 

rulemaking of general applicability, which does not create a conflict under 

applicable rules. In any matters involving specific parties where I believe 

that my impartiality may be questioned, I will consult with relevant federal 

ethics officials to determine whether to participate in a particular matter, 

provide them with all relevant facts, and follow their guidance. Following 

these procedures, along with all the other commitments I have made to 

comply with applicable ethics rules, will ensure that I discharge my duties 

impartially. 

79.How should the EPA consider the synergistic effects of chemicals when 

considering approval of these chemicals under FIFRA? 

If confirmed, I would expect to be briefed by staff about EPA's relevant legal 

authorities concerning pesticide registration and current practices in this 

area before taking any action. 

80.The Fish and Wildlife Service recently listed the rusty patched bumble bee as 

endangered, the first wild bee in the lower 48 states to receive this distinction. 

Pesticides were listed as part of the blame for the bee's current status. Other 

222 
962 

bumble bee species are also at risk due to increased pesticide use and other 

environmental challenges. How can the EPA assist in bettering the understanding 

of pesticides' role in declining bee and other pollinator species? 

I am generally aware of the important role bees play as pollinators, but I am 

not personally familiar with the details of the Endangered Species Act 

listing decision referenced in the question. If confirmed as Administrator, I 

would expect EPA to be briefed on the matter concerning EPA's legal 

authorities and any ongoing activities in this area before taking action. 

81.Under your leadership, what role will EPA play in the management and control 

of vector borne illnesses like Zika? 

If confirmed, I would expect to be briefed by staff about EPA's relevant legal 

authorities and operations in this area before taking any action. 

82.With respect to the Rule of Law Defense Fund, please provide the following: A 

written explanation of the role you or any person under your supervision has 

played in the establishment and operation of the Fund; a list of all donors who 

have contributed to the Fund since its inception, total donated, and their 

affiliations; a list of all requests you have made for funding and what was given 

and from whom in response; a list of all expenditures of over $1,000 made by the 

Fund since its inception; details of any Fund expenditures over $100 that have 

benefited you or any person under your supervision, including travel; all 

communications, including e-mails, between you and the Fund and between you 

and any individuals related to the establishment of the Fund or the conduct of the 

Fund's activities; a list of all meetings and fund raisers organized by or sponsored 

in whole or in part by the Fund that you or any person under your supervision 

attended, including the dates, locations, agendas and attendees; and a list of all 

federal and state legislation or regulations the Fund has taken a position on, 

Fund-organized legal briefs and letters to federal lawmakers, and all actions you 

have taken with respect to those matters. 

I did not play a role in founding or forming the Rule of Law Defense Fund, 

and no one on my staff played such a role. My understanding from the time I 

was a member of that entity's board is that its staff operates the fund. A list 

of contributors to the Fund since its inception is in the custody of RLDF and 

I do not personally have records of or have knowledge of that information. 

Expenditures by the fund are in the custody of RLDF, and I do not 

personally have records of or have knowledge of that information. Any 

records relating to requests for funding to individuals or to corporate 

entities would be in the possession of RLDF. RLDF has paid for flights and 

accommodations when I attended RLDF events or panel discussions. 

223 
963 

Because those flights or accommodations were booked directly by RLDF 

staff, I am not in possession of any receipts for such flights or 

accommodations. 

83.Piease list all matters you or your office has had with the US EPA since you 

became Attorney General of Oklahoma. For the purposes of this and the following 

questions, "matters" refers to lawsuits (including lawsuits in which your office filed 

a "friend of the court" brief), enforcement actions, investigations, rulemakings, or 

any other matter which included an adjudication between parties. 

In order for you to receive a comprehensive response to a voluminous 

request of that nature requesting information on all matters, I would direct 

you to make a request of the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office under the 

Oklahoma Open Records Act. 

84.For each matter you identify in the previous question, please list the following: 

The names of the attorneys in your office who worked on the matter, and the 

names and affiliations of all attorneys with whom you or the attorneys in your 

office had communications about the matter. The names and affiliations of any 

person with whom you had communications about the matter, and the dates of the 

communications, and a summary of the substance of that communication. For any 

person listed the previous subpart, or corporation represented by that person, any 

contribution or payment made to Scott Pruitt for Attorney General, the Republican 

Attorney General Association, the Republican Attorney Generals Association, the 

Rule of Law Defense Fund, Liberty 2.0, Oklahoma Strong, or any other political 

action committee or 501 (c)(4) organization with which you are or have been 

affiliated in any way. 

In order for you to receive a comprehensive response to a voluminous 

request of that nature requesting information on all matters, I would direct 

you to make a request of the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office and the 

Oklahoma Ethics Commission under the Oklahoma Open Records Act and 

the individual political organizations. 

85.Piease list all matters you or your office has had with the US Department of 

Interior since you became Attorney General of Oklahoma. For the purposes of this 

and the following questions, "matters" refers to lawsuits (including lawsuits in 

which your office filed a "friend of the court" brief), enforcement actions, 

investigations, rulemakings, or any other matter which included an adjudication 

between parties. 

In order for you to receive a comprehensive response to a voluminous 

request of that nature requesting information on all matters, I would direct 

224 
964 

you to make a request of the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office under the 

Oklahoma Open Records Act. 

86.For each matter you identify in the previous question, please list the following: 

The names of the attorneys in your office who worked on the matter, and the 

names and affiliations of all attorneys with whom you or the attorneys in your 

office had communications about the matter. The names and affiliations of any 

person with whom you had communications about the matter, and the dates of the 

communications, and a summary of the substance of that communication. For any 

person listed the previous subpart, or corporation represented by that person, any 

contribution or payment made to Scott Pruitt for Attorney General, the Republican 

Attorney General Association, the Republican Attorney Generals Association, the 

Rule of Law Defense Fund, Liberty 2.0, Oklahoma Strong, or any other political 

action committee or 501 (c)(4) organization with which you are or have been 

affiliated in any way. 

In order for you to receive a comprehensive response to a voluminous 

request of that nature requesting information on all matters, I would direct 

you to make a request of the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office and the 

Oklahoma Ethics Commission under the Oklahoma Open Records Act and 

the individual political organizations. 

87.Piease list all matters in which your office participated in any way challenging a 

law, rule, or regulation of a state other than Oklahoma. For each matter listed, 

please include the following: Your understanding of the effect of that law, rule, or 

regulation on the people of Oklahoma. The names of the attorneys in your office 

who worked on the matter, and the names and affiliations of all attorneys with 

whom you or the attorneys in your office had communications about the matter. 

The names and affiliations of any person with whom you had communications 

about the matter, and the dates of the communications, and a summary of the 

substance of that communication. For any person listed the previous subpart. or 

corporation represented by that person, any contribution or payment made to 

Scott Pruitt for Attorney General, the Republican Attorney General Association, 

the Republican Attorney Generals Association, the Rule of Law Defense Fund, 

Liberty 2.0, Oklahoma Strong, or any other political action committee or 501 (c)(4) 

organization with which you are or have been affiliated in any way. 

In order for you to receive a comprehensive response to a voluminous 

request of that nature requesting information on all matters, I would direct 

you to make a request of the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office and the 

Oklahoma Ethics Commission under the Oklahoma Open Records Act and 

the individual political organizations. 

225 
965 

88. As Attorney General you have played a major rule challenging EPA's Clean 

Power Plan and seven other major rules protecting the public from air pollution, 

water pollution, and toxic threats. Professional ethics rules prohibit attorneys from 

changing sides, as you would be doing if confirmed. Federal ethical guidelines 

specifically require that a public official should not act on a matter if a reasonable 

person who knew the circumstances of the situation could legitimately question 

his or her fairness. Will you commit to recusing yourself from substantive matters 

that include EPA's climate rules, its mercury and air toxics rules, its most recent 

clean water rule, and others related to the eight pending cases you have against 

EPA as an Attorney General? 

It is my understanding that recusal obligations do not extend to regulatory 

rulemaking of general applicability, which does not create a conflict under 

applicable rules. With respect to my professional obligations as a member 

of the bar, I am not permitted to "switch sides" as counsel in any matter in 

which I participated as a lawyer. The standards that would apply to me as 

EPA Administrator are different as I would not be representing the EPA as a 

lawyer. Nonetheless, in any matters involving specific parties where I 

believe that my impartiality may be questioned, I will consult with relevant 

federal ethics officials to determine whether to participate in a particular 

matter and provide them with all relevant facts. 

89.You have taken credit for the lawsuit State of Oklahoma et al. v. Mahard Egg 

Farm. What was the date on which the complaint in that case was filed? What are 

the dates of the allegations in the case? Had any Oklahoma state agencies taken 

any steps to investigate that matter before you became Attorney General? If so, 

please specify the agencies, their roles investigating the case, and the dates on 

which they were taken. Did the Oklahoma Attorney General's office take any 

steps to investigate that matter before you became Attorney General? If so, 

please specify what was done and when. Please indicate the date on which the 

Attorney General's office first contacted defendant(s) in this matter. 

As I have testified, it was a lawsuit that I initiated together with the State of 

Texas and the EPA. The complaint was filed on May 23, 2011. The consent 

decree was entered into on August 10, 2011. There was no case when I took 

office, but the matter had been investigated by the Office of Attorney 

General, the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, the EPA, and the State of 

Texas. I do not know the first date that the Office of Attorney General first 

contacted the defendants in that matter. 

90.Have you ever met or spoken with Richard "Rick" Berman, who has been 

affiliated with Center for Consumer Freedom? If so, please describe the 

substance and dates of your communications with him. Did you or the Attorney 

General's Office during your tenure ever receive communications of any sort from 

226 
966 

Mr. Berman or the Center for Consumer Freedom? If so, please specify the date 

and content of those communications. 

I do not recall ever having met Mr. Berman. I am not aware of any 

communications with Mr. Berman, but a request for such information can be 

made to the Office of Attorney General pursuant to Oklahoma's Open 

Records Act. 

91.Before March 12, 2014, had your office received any complaints about the 

Humane Society of the United States [HSUS] from a resident of the State of 

Oklahoma? If so, please identify the date of the complaint, the allegations in the 

complaint, and the city or town of residence of the complainant. 

I believe that our office had received such a complaint, but I do not know the 

residency of any such complainant. A request for such information can be 

made to the Office of Attorney General pursuant to Oklahoma's Open 

Records Act. 

92.1n March 2014, your office issued a consumer warning about HSUS. Based on 

what evidence did you issue this warning? Did you or your office communicate to 

any person or entity outside the Attorney General's Office about the timing or 

substance of your consumer warning about HSUS before it was issued? If so, 

please state the names of those with whom you or your office communicated, the 

dates, and the substance of those communications. 

The consumer warning was based on information suggesting that HSUS's 

solicitations for contributions might be misleading Oklahoma consumers. A 

request for communications can be made to the Office of Attorney General 

pursuant to Oklahoma's Open Records Act. 

93.0n July 1, 2014, your office issued a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) to 

HSUS. Based on what evidence did you issue that CID? 

The purpose of a CID is to gather such evidence. 

94.0n or about July 21, 2014, after the New York Attorney General entered into a 

settlement with the direct mailing firm Quadriga Art, you were quoted as saying 

"We believe what happened in New York potentially has happened in Oklahoma." 

Based on what evidence did you make that statement? Did you issue a Civil 

Investigative Demand or subpoena to any organizations other than HSUS as a 

result in whole or in part because of the NYAG's Quad riga Act settlement? If so, 

please specify the names of the organizations, the dates of the CID, and the result 

of any investigation conducted pursuant thereto. If not, what evidence did you 

have that distinguished HSUS from any of the other clients of Quad riga Art? 

227 
967 

As I recall, the Office believed that Quadriga Art may have been the vendor 

for direct mailers used by HSUS in Oklahoma. I am not aware of any other 

CIDs issued as a result of the Quad riga Art settlement. I am not aware of the 

Office having received any complaints or having any open investigations 

relating to other Quad riga Art clients. 

95.During the 2010 election cycle, did Devon Energy and Koch Industries max out 

to your campaign? During the 2014 election cycle, when you ran unopposed, did 

Devon, Koch Industries, and ExxonMobil max out to your campaign? How much 

total money has "Scott Pruitt for Attorney General" received from fossil fuel and 

agricultural interests? Please list your fossil fuel and agricultural donors, dates, 

and amounts. 

A full list of contributors to my campaigns for the state senate and attorney 

general may be found at the Oklahoma Ethics Commission's websites. For 

state campaign committee from 2002-2014, please use this 

site: https://www.ok.gov/ethics/public/candidate.php. For 2015 to the 

present, the Commission uses this 

site: http://guardian.ok.gov/PublicSite/SearchPages/Search.aspx?SearchTy 

peCodeHook=1 F26BA5E-71 EA-48E4-8D50-C1 013E9FEOA7. Attached is a 

letter from the Oklahoma Ethics Commission regarding materials prior to 

2002. 

96.How much total money did Oklahoma Strong, your leadership PAC, receive 

from fossil fuel and agricultural interests? Please list your fossil fuel and 

agricultural donors, dates, and amounts. 

I do not manage or control Oklahoma Strong PAC. Questions relating to its 

donors would need to be directed to those who do. 

97.How much total money did Liberty 2.0, the SuperPAC created to help get you 

elected, receive from fossil fuel and agricultural interests? Please list your fossil 

fuel and agricultural donors, dates, and amounts. 

I do not manage or control Liberty 2.0. Questions relating to its donors 

would need to be directed to those who do. 

98.Did you or anyone working for you or on your behalf ever solicit money for 

Oklahoma Strong or Liberty 2.0 from fossil fuel and agricultural interests? If so, 

when, from whom, and what was the result? Please note any solicitations that 

were made in which you mentioned work done in your official capacity as Attorney 

General of Oklahoma and what that work was. 

I solicited funds for Oklahoma Strong PAC from a broad array of individuals 

and corporations representing many different industries. While I do not 

recall specific solicitations, given my state's deep ties to farming and oil and 

228 
968 

gas, I do not doubt that I at some point fund raised from individuals with 

some connection to those industries. Staff members of the Oklahoma 

Strong PAC may have records of such solicitations, so requests for details 

would have to be made to that entity. I have on occasion solicited funds for 

Liberty 2.0, and records of those solicitations may be maintained by the 

staff of that organization, so requests for details would have to be made to 

that entity. I do not recall the contents of any specific conversations that I 

may have had in this context. 

99.During the hearing, I asked if you led the Rule of Law Defense Fund. In 

response, you stated you had "been an officer of the organization [Rule of Law 

Defense Fund] for 2016." Your EPW questionnaire states you were a board 

member or chairman at the Rule of Law Defense Fund between November 2013 

and December 2016 while your OGE disclosure says you were a member of the 

board or Chair between April 2014 and December 2016. Please clarify when you 

were you a board member of the Rule of Law Defense and when were you the 

Chair. 

I served on the Board of Directors of the Rule of Law Defense Fund from 

April2014 until November 2016.1 served as Chairman of the Board of 

Directors of the Rule of Law Defense Fund from November 2015 to 

November 2016. 

1 OO.During the hearing, I asked if you've ever solicited funds for RAGA and you 

stated you "did not serve in an officer capacity at that entity [RAGA]." On your 

EPW disclosure form you stated you were a member of the executive committee 

between November 2013 and November 2015. As discussed, OGE doesn't 

require you to disclose your relationship with RAGA or other 527 political 

organizations. Your Linked In and campaigns pages state you were chair of RAGA 

for two terms and RAGA's website indicates you were the RAGA chair in 2012 

and 2013. Please clarify when you've been chair of RAGA and when you've been 

on RAGA's executive committee. Did you provide any information about your 

relationship with RAGA to OGE or EPA when they were reviewing your conflicts of 

interest? 

I served as Chairman of the Republican Attorney Generals Association from 

November 2011 to November 2013. These dates represent "two terms" of 

serving as Chairman. Thereafter, I was a member of the Executive 

Committee from November 2013 to November 2015. I made all required 

disclosures to OGE and EPA ethics counsel, including disclosures about 

my relationship to RAGA. 

1 01.RAGA has given other Republican attorneys general call sheets to solicit on 

its behalf. Have you or any person working on your behalf ever received calf 

sheets from RAGA asking you to solicit money or event sponsorships? If so, 

when, for what purpose, who was on your list to contact, who if anyone did you or 

229 
969 

any member of your staff make contact any of the listed people/entities, and how 

much money and which sponsorships was given to RAGA as a result? 

1 did receive call sheets to solicit funds and/or event sponsorships for 

RAGA and I did make contact with the listed people/entities. The exact 

dates, the purpose, and who was called are records that are kept by RAGA, 

and those requests would need to be made to RAGA. Similarly, I do not 

have records of how much money or sponsorships were raised as a result -

those records are kept by the Republican Attorneys General Association. 

1 02.Besides call sheet efforts, did you or any person working on your behalf ever 

solicit money for RAGA? If so, when, from whom, for what purpose, and what was 

the result? 

No one else working on my behalf has solicited funds for RAGA. In addition 

to call sheet efforts, I have asked for funds from individuals/entities in 

person for RAGA. Records of exact dates, names of individuals and entities 

and how much money was solicited are kept by the staff of RAGA. 

1 03.1n 2015, you were on the agenda to speak on a panel entitled, "The 

Dangerous Consequences of the Clean Power Plan and other EPA Rules" during 

RAGA's National Summer meeting that included several fund raisers. The agenda 

for that meeting included private meetings with attorneys general and Murray 

Energy, Southern Company, and American Fuel Petrochemical Manufacturers. 

According to RAGA's 2015 and 2016 member benefits descriptions, donors that 

contribute $50,000 or more have an "annual opportunity to lead private briefings 

with Republican attorneys general during RAGA events" and attend other private 

events, including private dinners and retreats, at which Republican attorneys 

general are present. Did you or any person working on your behalf attend any of 

the private meetings with Murray Energy, Southern Company, and/or the 

American Fuel Petrochemical Manufacturers during the 2015 Summer National 

RAGA meeting? If yes, please provide a list of meeting attendees, any 

minutes/notes taken, and describe any conversations about EPA matters. 

I do not recall which meetings I attended at the event you reference. 

1 04.During your time as a member of RAGA, have you or any person working on 

your behalf attended any private meetings or functions with co-plaintiffs or amici 

for any of the 14 cases you brought against EPA? If yes, please provide a 

description of the meeting, the date, a list of meeting/event attendees, any 

minutes/notes taken, and describe any conversations about EPA matters. 

230 
970 

I do not recall private meetings or functions with a co-plaintiff or amici while 

at a RAGA event, and do not know of any instance where a person working 

on my behalf attended such a meeting. In instances where a case is being 

litigated, counsel for each plaintiff or amici will routinely speak about 

matters related to the litigation, as court rules and other procedural matters 

often require such communications. 

105.RAGA indicates that it raises and spends considerable amounts of money to 

support the election campaigns of Republican attorneys general. Please detail all 

expenditures from RAGA used to support your position in office, including but not 

limited to election campaign spending, contributions to other groups and PACs, 

and opposition research. Please detail any actions that you or your staff have 

taken to support the fund raising of RAGA for its campaign spending. 

RAGA's Oklahoma PAC contributed $5,000 to Scott Pruitt for Attorney 

General in April, 2014. Inquiries about what other groups and third parties 

RAGA may have contributed to, or research they conducted would have to 

be directed to RAGA. 

106.RAGA has indicated it has chartered flights for Republican attorneys general. 

Have you ever been a passenger on a RAGA-chartered flight? If so, when and 

where did you travel to and from? Did RAGA ever cover or reimburse you for 

transportation and accommodation? If so, please itemize when, for what, and the 

value. 

Yes, I recall I was a passenger on a chartered flight to and from Las Vegas, 

Nevada in the fall timeframe of 2014. RAGA has covered the cost of flights 

and accommodations for me when I have attended RAGA meetings. I do not 

keep itemized records of these expenses, flights and accommodations are 

booked directly by RAGA staff. 

1 07.While you were on the board of RLDF, did it cover any chartered flights on 

which you were a passenger or any of your transportation and accommodation 

costs? Please itemize any chartered or commercial flights, accommodations, and 

other travel-related expenses that exceed $100, and the value that RLDF 

covered. 

As far as I am aware, RLDF has never covered the cost of chartered flights 

for me or my staff. RLDF has covered costs of transportation and 

accommodations when I traveled on behalf of RLDF for meetings, panels, 

and other policy-related events. The staff of RLDF booked travel and 

accommodations for me directly, and records of the costs and expenses are 

kept by Rule of Law Defense Fund staff and are not in my possession. 

231 
971 

108.1n 2014 and 2015, while you were on the board or Chairman of RLDF, it 

contributed over half a million dollars to RAGA. Please list each transaction and 

the purpose of the transaction. 

Records of transactions between those entities are held by Republican 

Attorneys General Association staff and Rule of Law Defense Fund staff and 

are not in my possession. 

1 09.As Attorney General, you have jointly signed numerous letters with other 

Republican attorneys general, such as your letter of June 15 2016 outlining your 

opposition to state investigations of Exxon Mobil. What role did the Rule of Law 

Defense Fund have in preparing and coordinating release of any letters signed by 

you as Attorney General? What role did the Republican Attorneys General 

Association have in preparing and coordinating release of any letters signed by 

you as Attorney General? What role did any corporate funder of Rule of Law 

Defense Fund or Republican Attorneys General Association have in preparing 

and coordinating release of any letters signed by you as Attorney General? 

I am not aware of what steps may have been taken by the Rule of Law 

Defense Fund in preparing or coordinating letters. Day to day operations of 

the Rule of Law Defense Fund are delegated to staff of the organization. I 

am unaware of any role by RAGA in preparing or coordinating release of 

letters. My understanding is that such letters are typically released by the 

office who took the lead on preparing the letter. I am unaware of any 

corporate funder of either RAGA or RLDF having any role in preparing or 

coordinating the release of letters signed by my office. 

11 O.During your time on the board or as Chairman of Rule of Law Defense Fund, 

did corporate donors to that organization participate in any meeting of the 

executive committee, including board meetings, phone calls or retreats. during 

which any EPA matters were discussed? If yes, which corporations participated, 

what was the nature of the event, and how did they participate (e.g., in person, by 

phone)? 

During my time as Chairman of Rule of Law Defense Fund, I cannot ever 

recall a time when "corporate donors" participated in a meeting of the 

executive committee, including board meetings, phone calls or retreats 

during which EPA matters were discussed. However, members and funders 

of the Rule of Law Defense Fund were invited to attend large group panel 

discussions hosted by RLDF where several EPA matters were discussed. 

Any records of attendees at those meetings would be in the possession of 

the Rule of Law Defense Fund staff. 

232 
972 

111.During your time as attorney general, have you received gifts or in-kind 

donations that exceed $100 from any entities besides RAGA and RLDF? If so, 

please list when, from whom, and describe if it was related to a specific event or 

commitment. 

I do not recall receiving gifts with a value of more than $100 from RAGA 

and/or RLDF. I have, as stated before, had travel and accommodations 

provided for me when I traveled to and from RAGA or RLDF meetings. 

112.Will you commit to recusing yourself from matters before EPA involving any 

party from whom you have solicited funds during your time as Attorney General of 

Oklahoma? 

Before participating in any matters involving specific parties where I believe 

that my impartiality may be questioned, I will consult with relevant federal 

ethics officials and provide them with all relevant facts. 

113.Under your predecessors, senior EPA managers' schedules have been 

available to the public. If confirmed, do you agree to make senior managers' 

schedules available as well? 

If confirmed, I will commit to following applicable laws concerning the 

public availability of schedules for senior managers. 

114.How many email addresses have you used since becoming Attorney General 

of Oklahoma? How many do you still use? Please provide the domains of all email 

addresses you've used during your time as Attorney General of Oklahoma, along 

with the dates used, and note whether they were personal, professional, or both. 

I have used two e-mail addresses since becoming Attorney General of 

Oklahoma. I use a personal e-mail address for personal e-mail, and an 

official e-mail address for official business. The domain of my personal email address is me.com and the domain of my official e-mail address is 

oag.ok.gov. 

115.Have you ever conducted business using your personal email accounts, nonofficial Oklahoma Attorney General email accounts, text messages, instant 

messenger, voicemails, or any other medium? If yes, please provide all businessrelated emails, texts, from those mediums and any others you've used to conduct 

official business. 

I use only my official OAG email address and government issued phone to 

conduct official business. 

233 
973 

116.1n a recent Oklahoma Strong fundraising email, you said:" ... As Chairman of 

the Rule of Law Defense Fund, the policy arm for Republican Attorneys General, I 

asked my fellow AGs to sign onto a letter urging Senate Majority Leader 

McConnell and Judiciary Chairman Grassley to stand strong and continue to hold 

fast against this [Merrick Garland] nomination." What email address did you use 

to get the other attorneys general to sign onto this letter? What if any groups 

solicited signatures from other attorneys general? Did you ask Democrats to sign 

the letter or just Republicans? 

I do not recall using any email address to solicit signatures. I have no 

knowledge of what other groups may have solicited signatures from 

attorneys general. I do not recall asking any Democrats to support the letter. 

117 .If confirmed, do you commit to notifying the Committee of all of the email 

addresses you plan to use upon confirmation and within seven days of using a 

new email address, including any aliases or pseudonyms? Do you commit do 

conducting all business using official email addresses and other means and to 

refrain from any mediums that are outside the Freedom of Information Act's 

reach? 

If confirmed, I commit to notifying the Committee of the e-mail address I use 

for official business. I will use my official e-mail address for official EPA 

related business. 

118.The office of the Oklahoma AG's budget and FTEs have grown significantly 

while you've been in office and you indicated you have seven FTEs, accounting 

for $679,000 in salaries, focused on "environmentally-related responsibilities." 

What is the breakdown of budget and FTEs dedicated to challenging EPA vs. 

criminal and civil environmental cases? 

The Office's budget and expenditures can fluctuate greatly year over year 

depending on the timing of case settlements and related distributions. For 

example in fiscal year 2014, the Attorney General's Office distributed higher 

than normal case settlement funds that inflated the budget over typical 

levels. Conversely, that total came down in fiscal years 2015 and 2016. 

Thus, fluctuations such as the one assumed by your question do not 

accurately reflect the size of the Office's budget. In my tenure as Attorney 

General, the Oklahoma Office of the Attorney General streamlined legal 

services for dozens of agencies, returned $29 million to the General 

Revenue Fund, distributed mortgage settlement restitution funds to 

impacted citizens, strengthened tobacco enforcement, and led the Office in 

such a fiscally responsible manner that the Office was able to forego all $6.4 

234 
974 

million in state-appropriated operating funds for fiscal year 2017 --that in 

addition to the Office having its annual appropriation cut in every prior year. 

The Office of Attorney General was the only state agency to voluntarily do 

this. During my tenure, the Office assumed the statutory duties of the 

Human Rights Commission through our Office of Civil Rights Enforcement, 

strengthened tobacco settlement enforcement efforts, and launched the 

Solicitor General's Unit. The Office also increased by one third the number 

of agencies, commissions, or boards which it represents. This has led to a 

precipitous decline in state agency usage of costly private counsel. It is 

these and other efforts that have permitted the Office to contribute 

approximately $29 million to the General Revenue Fund over the last six 

years. With regard to FTEs related "to challenging EPA vs. criminal and civil 

environmental cases," the Office currently has four FTEs whose 

responsibilities would include (among many other things) challenges to 

EPA rulemakings or other actions. 

119.As submitted for the record, here are some statistics from Drew Edmonson's 

Environmental Unit (1997 to 201 0): Criminal matters 

142 criminal investigations; 56 federal or state prosecutions; 110 felony counts 

convictions of individuals; 21 misdemeanor count convictions of individuals; 10 

felony counts convictions of corporations; 3 misdemeanor count convictions of 

corporations; 28 years of jail time; $8M in fines. Is it still your position that the 

Environmental Protection Unit was only handling one case when you took office? 

I am not familiar with the cases being handled prior to my taking office. As I 

have stated, when I took Office, the primary focus of the "environmental 

protection unit" was a single lawsuit relating to poultry farms. 

120.We reviewed the Oklahoma Attorney General's website between when you 

took office and the present and found no press releases on criminal or civil 

environmental enforcement matters. For this review, we did not include lawsuits 

by Oklahoma against EPA. Why were there no environmental enforcement 

matters listed on your website as of January 17, 2017? 

I have not reviewed the website, so I am not familiar with what matters are 

or are not listed. 

121.What specific reductions in air, water, or solid waste pollution have resulted 

from your environmental enforcement actions as Attorney General? 

Environmental regulation in Oklahoma is the responsibility of Oklahoma's 

environmental regulators at agencies like the Oklahoma Department of 

Environmental Quality and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board. The 

235 
975 

Office of Attorney General sometimes provides legal services to those 

agencies with regard to environmental issues, and in that capacity the 

Office has, for example, negotiated a consent decree requiring a large 

concentrated animal feeding operation to clean up its operations to prevent 

water pollution, and negotiated an agreement whereby Arkansas agreed to a 

stringent phosphorous standard in the Illinois River. 

122.How many criminal investigations, federal prosecutions, state prosecutions, 

felony count convictions of individuals, misdemeanor count convictions of 

individuals, felony count convictions of corporations, misdemeanor count 

convictions of corporations, years of jail time, and cumulative fines resulted from 

environmental cases you initiated? Please list and describe any civil suits and 

actions you initiated. 

To list and describe every civil suit and action initiated by the Office of 

Attorney General would be all but impossible. Each attorney is responsible 

for maintaining their own case files, and the Office employs many attorneys 

across many different units who litigate civil matters of all kinds. In order for 

you to receive a comprehensive response to a voluminous request of that 

nature requesting information on all matters, I would direct you to make a 

request of the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office under the Oklahoma 

Open Records Act, and to the extent it is even possible to compile such a 

list, the Office would make efforts to do so. 

123.The Center for Media and Democracy ORA request is dated on or about 

January 5, 2015. During the hearing, you said, "I actually have a general counsel 

and an administrator in my office that are dedicated to performing or providing 

responses to open records requests." In response to questions about the January 

5, 2015 request, your general counsel apologized for the delayed response and 

explained she was busy with other duties. What percentage of time do each of the 

two staff you mentioned dedicate to responding to Open Records Act requests? 

Have you communicated with your office's general counsel or any other attorney 

handling ORA requests to discuss the timing of your office's response to any 

specific request? If so, please identify which requests you discussed, the dates of 

those discussions, and the substance of your discussions. 

The Office of Attorney General employs a paralegal who intakes requests, 

opens files, and searches for documents responsive to each Open Records 

Act request. Once the search is complete, the office's general counsel must 

review each document to ensure it does not contain information required to 

be kept confidential under state and federal laws. Along with overseeing the 

Open Records Act process, the office's general counsel is responsible for 

overseeing many other programs and statutory duties with which the Office 

is tasked. I am unaware of what percentage of time is spent solely on Open 

Records Act requests. I do not recall any conversations with individuals in 

my office regarding the timing of Open Records Act responses. 

236 
976 

124. In a letter regarding this request, your general counsel stated your office 

processes "these requests in the order in which they are received." How long has 

that been the policy of your office? Have you fulfilled any ORA requests submitted 

since at least January 5, 2015? 

To my knowledge, that is how the office has historically processed such 

requests. I am not aware of which requests submitted since January 5, 2015 

have or have not been responded to. 

125.According to a recent E&E article, your office has 52 outstanding open 

records requests. Please provide a list of all pending FOIA, Open Records Act or 

other similar information requests under Oklahoma state law, by whom, and when 

each was a filed. 

I am not familiar with the pending requests. Such a requests should be 

directed to the Office of Attorney General's general counsel, who can 

provide such a list. 

126.The public and this Committee, in fulfilling our constitutional advice and 

consent duties, have a right to see information pursuant to the Open Records Act. 

Please produce all of the following material that has been requested under the 

Open Records Act prior to November 8, 2016: related to RAGA, RLDF, Liberty 

2.0, Oklahoma Strong, and any other 527s, 501 (c)(3), and 501 (c)(4)s, including 

the State Policy Network and ALEC; correspondence with the fossil fuel and 

agriculture industries and any other industries regulated by EPA; any other 

material related to energy, environment, agriculture, and EPA. 

If Open Records Act requests for such information have been made, as your 

question suggests, those requests will be answered in the normal course. 

127.Piease provide a list of all Open Records Act requests your office has 

received during your tenure, from whom and when, the number of days it took to 

produce the requested documents or decline the request, the outcome of those 

requests including whether any decisions have been or currently are being 

challenged in court, and share the following material that has been disclosed as a 

result of those requests with the Committee: related to RAGA, RLDF, Liberty 2.0, 

Oklahoma Strong, and any other 527s, 501 (c)(3), and 501 (c)(4)s, including State 

Policy Network and ALEC; correspondence with the fossil fuel and agriculture 

industries and any other industries regulated by EPA; any other material related to 

energy, environment, agriculture, and EPA 

237 
977 

In order for you to receive a comprehensive response to a voluminous 

request of that nature, I would direct you to make a request of the Oklahoma 

Attorney General's Office under the Oklahoma Open Records Act. 

128.What was the average length of time it took your office to fulfill open record 

act requests to your office between January 2011 and December 6, 2014? What 

was the average length of time it took your office to fulfill open record act requests 

to your office from December 7, 2014 to the present? What, if any, steps has your 

office taken to improve the timeliness of your open records act responses? 

I am not aware of what the average length of time my office took to fulfill 

open record act requests is. I have directed my staff to respond to all open 

records act requests in a timely and efficient manner. 

129.Under what circumstances would it be appropriate for EPA to fail to respond 

to a FOIA request for 700 days? 

I am not in a position to render an opinion a hypothetical given that different 

open record requests raise issues specific to the particular requests at 

issue. However, I appreciate the importance of openness and transparency, 

and if confirmed I will work to ensure EPA complies with all legal 

requirements concerning the implementation of the Freedom of Information 

Act and other statutes EPA is responsible for administering. 

130.Why did you fail to disclose records on your office's expenditures on outside 

attorneys, as is required under Oklahoma state law, until contacted by a reporter? 

Why did you not hold your own office's spending practices to the same standard 

expected of other Oklahoma state offices? 

The Office of Attorney General complies with its legal obligations relating to 

outside counsel, and discloses any outside counsel contracts when asked. 

131.1s it correct that your office has spent over $1 million in outside lawyer 

expenses during your tenure? Please explain the unreported increase in 

expenses. 

The bulk of the outside counsel expenses incurred by the Office during my 

tenure relate to a single dispute over water rights in southeastern 

Oklahoma. The Legislature specially appropriated funds to my office for the 

specific purpose of retaining outside counsel with expertise relevant to that 

tribal water law issue. 

238 
978 

132.0klahoma state law requires that state agencies select attorneys from a preapproved list. Several of the outside attorneys that your office has hired are not 

included on the list of approved attorneys. Why didn't you comply with this 

requirement? 

Because the Office of Attorney General maintains the referenced list, and is 

authorized to allow representation from attorneys not on the list, the Office 

of Attorney General plainly has the discretion to allow representation from 

attorneys not on the list. 

133.You have not released records on your contracts with outside attorneys, as 

required under Oklahoma state law. Please provide all contracts, including any 

related to pro-bono work. Have any private interests been funding outside 

attorneys representing your office in lawsuits against the federal government? If 

so, who, why, and in what amounts? For any pro-bono work, is that an in-kind 

donation that should be recorded and accounted for in your office's accounting? 

Has your office done so? Please provide a list of these in-kind donations, from 

whom, when the work was done, and the value. 

A requests for such contracts can made to the Office of Attorney General 

pursuant to Oklahoma's Open Records Act. When my office retains outside 

counsel to assist on a matter, it either compensates those attorneys itself, 

or the outside counsel provides the services pro bono. I am not aware of 

any outside funding of pro bono counsel, and would not retain any pro bono 

counsel if they were being so funded. I am not aware of any requirement 

that pro bono legal services be considered an in kind donation to the Office 

of Attorney General. 

134.You received campaign contributions from at least one of the attorneys that 

provided outside representation for Oklahoma-David Rivkin, of D.C. law firm 

BakerHostetler. Is there a prohibition on receiving campaign contributions from 

those in a contractual relationship with your office? Was your contribution from Mr. 

Rivkin in compliance with such requirements? 

I am not aware of any such requirements. In any event, Mr. Rivkin received 

no compensation from the Office for the legal services he provided. 

135.Are you aware of any payments made to Mr. Rivkin from other parties in 

return for his representation of your state? 

I am unaware of any payments made to Mr. Rivkin from any other parties in 

return for his representation. 

239 
979 

136.0id you contact Mr. Rivkin about representing the State of Oklahoma, did he 

contact you, or did a third-party made the connection? Please explain. 

I cannot recall the exact circumstances leading to Mr. Rivkin's 

representation, or who initiated the contact. Mr. Rivkin has represented over 

half of our Nation's states on various matters, and is a well-recognized 

expert on constitutional questions, particularly those relating to States and 

their federalism interests. 

137.According to your questionnaire, you've given dozens of environment-related 

speeches in Oklahoma and around the country, many to industry groups. Have 

you ever given one to a public health group, environmental NGO, or scientific 

society? You've received various awards, several from industry groups. Have you 

ever received an award from a public health or environmental group for protecting 

public health? How about environmental quality? Have you ever received an 

award from a scientific society? 

I have given dozens of speeches on a wide variety of topics to many 

different groups and industries. I do not recall a specific public health 

group, NGO or scientific society I have spoken to. I do not recall receiving 

awards from a public health or environmental group or a scientific society. 

138. Please provide any correspondence or details about other communication 

between you or anyone working on your behalf concerning the establishment or 

activities of America Rising, America Rising Squared, and Protecting America 

Now, and any other organizations that are funding efforts to get you confirmed as 

EPA Administrator. 

I am not aware of any such correspondence. 

139.You wrote an op-ed attacking efforts to investigate whether Exxon 

deliberately misled investors and the public despite internal research confirming 

that climate change is real. Please describe any conversations you've had with 

political donors to you or your affiliated political action committees, RAGA, Rule of 

Law Defense Fund, or co-plaintiffs or amici in your cases against EPA about 

Exxon Mobil's potential liability under federal or state law regarding climate change 

(e.g., federal RICO, New York state's Martin Act, etc.), including the date and 

substance of those conversations. 

I do not recall any such conversations. 

240 
980 

140.During your time as the Attorney General of Oklahoma, have you or anyone 

in your immediate family owned any stocks of companies that were co-plaintiffs or 

amici in any of your 14 cases against the EPA, including ExxonMobil, Devon 

Energy, Murray Energy, Southern Company, and Continental Resources. If yes, 

please list the stock, dates held, and amount. 

To my knowledge, no, and a list of my investments has been provided as 

part of my financial disclosures. 

141.ln implementing the Lauten berg Act, EPA, consistent with congressional 

intent, issued a notice making it clear that substantiation of all non-exempt 

confidential business information (CBI) claims is required upfront. Do you commit 

to ensuring the EPA follows and upholds that requirement? 

As I have previously stated I believe the Lautenberg Act struck an 

appropriate balance between protecting confidential business information 

and informing the public and I intend to apply the law as drafted by 

congress. 

142.1n a speech at Hillsdale College on June 30, 2016, you referred to a threehour private, basement meeting with Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Thomas, 

Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society, and other unidentified people. Referring to 

Justice Scalia, you said: Leonard [Leo] blessed me on a number of occasions to 

spend some quality time, personal time, with the previous justice. In fact, I 

remember one year about three years ago, I was here for a Federalist Society 

event, their annual meeting that occurs in November. Leonard said 'Scott, stay 

over, I'd like for you to go dinner on Friday night'... we went to a basement in 

Washington DC, there were about ten of us in attendance. Two of those folks in 

attendance were Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas. And we spent three hours 

talking about the constitution and things that were involved in as attorneys 

general. It was a fabulous time. 

What was the date of this basement meeting? Please provide a complete list of 

the participants. Please list all cases pending before the Supreme Court at the 

time of this meeting in which the State of Oklahoma was a party and/or on which 

you or an attorney in your office was counsel of record. During the basement 

meeting, was there any discussion or mention of EPA, the environment, public 

health, environmental or public health regulations, environmental laws including 

but limited to the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, NEPA, mercury, cross-state 

air pollution, Renewable Fuels Standards, ozone standards, endangerment from 

GHGs, regional haze, or climate change. If so, please identify the specific topics 

that were discussed or mentioned. Have you ever had any other private meetings 

with any other state or federal judges or justices while you had cases pending 

before their courts? Which cases? Please describe any such meeting, including 

the dates, locations, attendees, and topics discussed. 

241 
981 

I do not recall the date of the dinner to which you refer, but I believe it was 

in November 2013. It was a private dinner. I am not aware of any matters that 

my office had pending before the Supreme Court at the time. As far I recall, 

none of the topics you mentioned was discussed, nor was any specific 

matter of any sort discussed. I am not aware of any other meetings of the 

sort to which you refer. In my capacity as attorney general, I am often at 

events with judges or justices of various sorts, but no discussion of 

pending matters would ever occur in any social interactions we might have. 

143.The lifetime emissions of any energy source should be considered in the 

context of necessary extraction techniques as well as transportation of the fuel, 

among other issues. For example, transporting crude via pipeline clearly creates 

fewer emissions than transporting it via other sources in terms of fossil fuel 

energy. Without knowing the specifics of all of these factors in a given instance, it 

is difficult to identify which sources may result in greater emissions. 

The role of the United States in the Paris Agreement is a State Department 

matter. If confirmed, I will work to advance the mission of the EPA, which is 

to protect human health and the environment, consistent with the State 

Department's strategy for international engagement on climate change. 

144. Do you support the amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase down 

HFCs? 

Should the State Department decide to advance the Kigali Amendment to 

the Montreal Protocol and if I am confirmed as Administrator, I will work 

with all involved agencies and impacted stakeholders to ensure that EPA's 

actions related to hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are coordinated accordingly. 

242 
982 

list of cases General Pruitt joined, Initiated, and amicus 

Ala.ska v. Jewel, SCOTUS No. 13-562, 2013 WL 6493517, 

Filed December 6, 2013. Oklahoma was an amicus.IJ states and Arizona Dept of Water 

Resources involved. 

American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 2011 WL 465735 

Piled February 7, 2.011; Oklahoma joined 23 other states as amici in support of 

Defendants/Petitioners 

American Farm Bureau FetleratitJ/1 v. EPA, (SCOTUS No. 15-599), 2015 WL 8758154 

Filed Dec. 9, 20 15; Oklahoma was amicus along with 21 other states in suppo11 of 

certiorari. 

Appeal of Jrd Circuit case above, Am. Farm Bureau Fed. v. EPA. 

American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA, (3rd Cir. Case No. 13-4079), 2014 WL 505475 

Filed February 3, 20 14; Oklahoma and 21 other states were amici. 

American Nurses Ass'n v. Jackson, Utility Air Regulatory Group Defendant-Intervenor, (D.D.C. 

Case No. 08-2198) 

Filed October 13,2011. Oklahoma joined as Amici, 2.5 States and Guam Joined the Amicus 

Brief 

Aurora Energy Services, LLC ''·Alaska Community Action, 2015 WL 1501921 

Filed April2, 2015. Oklahoma was an amici. Alaska and West Virginia also joined. 

Builtli11g Industry Assoc. Of tile Bay Area v. U11ited States, 2016 WL 3136680 

Filed June 2, 20 16; Oklahoma was one of23 amici states supporting Petitioner and urging 

the court to he~r the case 

Decker v. lVW E11vim. Defense Cmter, SCOTUS No. 11-338 (Cert) 

Filed October 14, 2011. State of Oklahoma joined as Amici, 26 States joined the Amici 

Brief in support of cert. 

Decker v. NW Et~vironmetlfal Defense Center, Nos 11-338, 11-347 (Merits) 

Filed September 4, 20 J 2; Oklahoma and 25 other states were amici. 

EME Homer City Generation v. EPA, (D.C. Circuit)-- Challenging Cross State Air Pollution 

Rule 

Brief tiled in DC Circuit on December 20, 2014. Oklahoma was a party with 12 other 

states. 

Floritltt eta/ v. EPA, Case No. 15-1267 (D.C. Circuit) 

Filed August II, 2015. Oklahoma is a party, Florida is lead State (17 States joined the case) 

Grocery Mfrs. of Americtl v. EPA, 2011 WL 2941301 (D.C. Circuit) 

Filed July 20,2011. Oklahoma and three other states were amici. Corrected brief filed on 

7121/11 

Grocery Mf,.,;. Ass'11 v. U.S. Environmenttrl Protection Agency, 2013 WL 1329310 (2013) 

Filed February 29,2013. Oklahoma was an amicus. Alabama and Virginia also joined. 

!11 Re: Murray Energy Corporation, 2014 WL 2885937 (2014) 

Filed June 25, 2014. Oklahoma was an amicus. Eight other states joined. 

Lumit~ant Genert11iot1 Co. v. EPA, SCOTUS No. 12-1484 

Filed July 24,2013. Oklahoma joined as Amici, 18 States Joined the Amicus Brief. 

Micltigan v. Enviroflmellta/ Protection Agency, 2015 WL 309090 (2015) 

Filed January 20,2015. Oklahoma was a party. 21 States in total. 

Michigan, eta!., Petitioners, v. E11vironmentt1l Protection Age11cy, 2016 WL 1043192 

Filed March 14, 2016. Oklahoma was a petitioner. 19 States in total. 

Mi11go Logan Coal Co. v. EPA, 2013 WL 6678603 

Filed December 16, 20 13; Oklahoma was an amicus along with 26 other states in suppo11 

of cert. 
983 

Murray Energy Corporation, Petitioner, v. United Stales Envirol!melllal Protection Age11cy and 

Regina A. McCarthy, Administrator, Respondents, 2015 WL 1064058 (D.C. Cir. No. 14-1112) 

(Clean Power Plan Case) 

Filed March 9, 20!5. Oklahoma intervened. 12 States in total. 

Murray E11ergy Corp. et al. v. EPA, 2016 WI, 6565997 (C.A.6) (WOTUS case) 

Filed September 9, 2016. Oklahoma was a party. 31 States in total. 

Murray Energy Corp. V. EPA, (D.C. Circuit Case No. 15-1385 (consolidated with 15-1392,15-

1490, 15-1491 & 15-1494) (Challenge to the EPA NAAQS Ozone Rule) 

Filed October 27, 2015. Oklahoma is a party, Arizona is lead state (5 States joined the 

appeal) 

Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, (D.C. Cir. No. 16-1127) (Challenging limits on Mercury) 

Opening brief filed November 18, 2016. Oklahoma is a party. 

National Mining A.fS'II v. Perciasepe, (D.C. Circuit Nos. 12-5310, -5311) 

Filed July 22, 20 l 3. Oklahoma joined as Amici, II States Joined. 

Oklahoma; Oklahoma lmlustrial Energy Consumers; Oklahoma Gas atid Electric Company, 

Petitioners, v. United States Environmental Protection Agency; Sierra Club, Respondents, 2014 

WL 411561 (U.S.) (Regional Haze Case) 

Filed January 29,2014. Oklahoma was a petitioner. 

Oklahoma ex rei. Pruitt v. EPA, (lOth Cir No. 15-cv-00381) (WOTUS case) 

Appeal Filed April 19, 2016. Oklahoma is a party; case is consolidated with US Chamber. 

Oklalloma ex rei. Pruitt v. McCarthy, (N.D. Okla No. 15-cv-369) 2015 WL 4414384 

(Clean Power Plan) 

Filed July I, 2015. Oklahoma was the plaintiff. 

Oklalwma el al v EPA (W.D. Okla. Case 13-cv-00726) (FOIA Cnse) 

Oklahoma was lead, 11 States joined. 

Sierra Club v. McCarthy, 2015 WI" 5076258 (Ninth Cir.) 

Filed August 17,2015. Oklahoma was amicus; 17 other states joined. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes, 2016 WL 860553 

Filed March 2, 2016. Oklahoma was an amicus along with 22 other states. 

Utility Air Regulatory Group, el a/ v EPA (SCOTUS Case No. 12-1146) (Greenhouse Gas 

Case) 

Oklahoma was a party, Texas was lead State (12 States and Louisiana DEQ joined) 

West Virginia, et al., Petitioners, v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent, 

Clty of New York, et af.llllervenors, 2014 WL 6687575 (CA.D.C) 

Filed November 26,2014. Oklahoma was a petitioner. 12 States in total. 

West Virginia el a/ v EPA, (D.C. Cir. Case No. 15-1364) (consolidated) (Ill b c,.se) 

Filed November 3, 2015. Oklahoma is a party, cases were consolidated (23 States on the 

Petition for Review) 

White Stallion Energy Center, LLC, eta/., Petitioners, v. United States Environmental Protection 

Agency, eta/., Respondems, 2012 WL 6762633 (C.A.D.C.) (Mercury/MATS case) 

Filed October 23,2012. Oklahoma was a petitioner. 21 States in total. 

Wildeartlr Guardians v. Bidegian, 2013 WL 1869747 

Filed April23, 2013. Oklahoma joined 11 other states as amici. 

Wiidearth Guartlians v EPA, (D.C. Colo. Case No. 13-cv-02748 

Filed February 5, 2014; (State of Oklahoma Intervened). 

Wyoming v. EPA, 2015 WL 128482 

Filed January 5, 2015. Oklahoma and 9 other states filed as amici in support of Petitioners 

as to standard of review. 
984 

Speeches or Presentations that included reference to any issue related to energy or the environment 

since 1998. 

General Pruitt did not keep records on speeches given during service in the State legislature. The 

following are speeches where he referenced issues rather to energy and the environment. General 

Pruitt rarely prepared formal remarks for his speeches. However, when prepared remarks were 

prepared, those are attached. Further General Pruitt nor the OAG has records on the cost of 

commercial airfare or hotel accommodations as the inviting organizations covered those expenses. 

OK State Chamber 2/15/11 

OK Railroad Association 3/21/11 

OK Corporation Commission Public Hearing 3/23/11 

OK Federation of Republican Women 3/29/11 

Stephens County GOP 4/5/11 

Tulsa Regional Day at the Capitol4/6/11 

Farmers Insurance Legislative Conference 4/19/11 

Small Business Day at the Capitol 5/3/11 

OK GOP Convention 5/7/11 

OK Conservative PAC 5/11/11 

Tulsa Republican Club 6/14/11 

OK Cattlemen's Association 6/29/11 

Lions Club of Downtown OKC 6/26/11 

Tulsa Area Republican Assembly 8/16/11 

Ada-Seminole Tea Party 8/29/11 

Weatherford Rotary Club 10/18/11 

Grady County Tea Party 11/3/11 

OKC Republican Women 1/9/12 

Conference of Western Attorneys General2/17/12 (commercial airfare and hotel reimbursed by 

organization) 

Senate Testimony 6/28/12 

National Policy Summit 8/20/12 

RNC Republican Attorneys General Assn Brunch 8/29/12 (commercial airfare and hotel reimbursed by 

organization 

Heritage Foundation 9/14/12 (commercial airfare and hotel reimbursed by organization) 

O!PA Fall Conference 10/21/12 

Midcontinental Oil and Gas Assoc. 12/12/12 

Delaware County Republican Lincoln-Reagan Dinner 4/5/13 

Federalist Society Midwest Leaders 4/20/13 (commercial airfare and hotel reimbursed by organization) 

ALEC Energy Workshop 5/3/13 (commercial airfare and hotel reimbursed by organization) 

Tulsa Republican Club· 8/16/13 

Sons and Daughters of Uberty- 9/17/13 

OCPAC Meeting- 9/18/13 

OCPA Energy Panel- 9/25/13 

OCPA Energy Summit- 10/17/13 

IOGCC Annual Meeting -11/5/13 

OG&E Annual Leadership Meeting- 12/11/13 

AFPM Speech 

CPAC Panel- 3/8/14 
985 

Concord 51- 3/12/14 

George Mason University School of Law Panel- 4/7/14 

CWAG Panel: Role of AGs between Local/State/Federal Regulators- 4/16/14 (commercial airfare and 

hotel reimbursed by organization) 

American Tort Reform Association- 7/10/14 

ALEC Annual Meeting- 7/31/14 

ALEC Panel- 7/31/14 

AFP Oklahoma Dinner- 8/29/14 

AFP Panel- 8/22/14 

Dallas Conservatives Luncheon- 12/15/14 

Cooperating Oil and Gas Associations- 1/9/15 

Kentucky Environmental Conference- 2/10/15 (commercial airfare and hotel reimbursed by 

organization) 

Tulsa Republican Club- 2/20/15 

CPAC lOth Amendment Panel- 2/28/15 

Oklahoma City Republican Women - 3/2/15 

Tulsa 912 Club- 4/9/15 

RAGA Law & Uberty Dinner- 4/13/15 {commercial airfare and hotel reimbursed by organization) 

EPW Testimony- 5/5/15 

Heritage Foundation Panel- 5/6/15 

New Horizon Council- 5/13/15 

Southern Republican Leadership Convention- 5/22/15 

SRLC Panel- 5/22/15 

Western District Federalist Society- 6/6/16 (commercial airfare and hotel reimbursed by organization) 

OKC Downtown Club- 6/16/15 

Faith and Freedom Coalition- 6/19/15 

FreedomWorks Restore Liberty - 6/26/15 

RAGA Clean Power Plan Panel- 8/3/15 

Heartland Republican Women- 8/20/15 

Muskogee Chamber- 8/26/15 

Great Plains Republican Women- 9/16/15 

Western Farmers "Emerging Technology" Conference· 9/22/15 

Broken Arrow Chamber- 10/22/15 

Federalist Society- 1/30/16 (commercial airfare and hotel reimbursed by organization) 

CPAC Energy Panel- 3/3/16 

CPAC lOth Amendment Panel- 3/3/16 

OK Farm Bureau Conference- 3/7/16 

OU Law Lunch & Learn- 3/9/16 

Bartlesville Day at the Capitol- 4/13/16 

Piedmont Chamber Legislative Update- 4/14/16 

OIPA Wildcatter Luncheon- 5/4/16 

FreedomWorks Face book Livestream • 6/30/16 

Hillsdale College· 6/30/16 (commercial airfare and hotel reimbursed by organization) 

Tulsa Federalist Society- 7/1/16 

Tulsa Medical Society Board- 7/13/16 

Edmond Republican Women- 9/19/16 

State Policy Network Energy Panel-10/3/16 

State Policy Network Federalism Panel- 10/3/16 
986 

Noble County Republicans- 10/25/16 

Kiwanis Club of Tulsa - 11/7/16 

OK Farm Bureau Convention - 11/11/16 

Cozen O'Connor and Assoc. for Corporate Counsel- 11/17/16 (commercial airfare and hotel reimbursed 

by organization) 

Bartlesville Chamber Eggs & Issues- 12/8/16 
987 

Oklahoma Environmental Cases 

Cases Initiated by AG Drew Edmondson but continued under AG Scott Pruitt 

State of Oklahoma v. TronoxState Of Oklahoma v Kelco Manufacturing 

State of Oklahoma & EPA v. ApcoState of Oklahoma v. Michelin/BFG -

State of Oklahoma & ODEQ v Blackwell Zinc 

State of Oklahoma & NRC v. Fansteel 

State of Oklahoma & Cherokee Nation v. Sequoyah Fuels Corp 

EPA, State of Oklahoma v. Doe Run Mining et al. Tar CreekODWC v. Kent Feeds El Reno Fish Kill: 

State of Oklahoma v Tulsa Fuels -

State of Oklahoma v Tyson Foods et al, 

Cases or Investigations initiated by AG Scott Pruitt 

EPA, States of Oklahoma & Texas v Mahard Egg Farm (AG Pruitt filed the case and Consent 

Decree) 

Plains & Eastern Clean Line 

FEMA Flood Zone 

ODWC v. Southern Towing 

State of Oklahoma v Conoco Phillips 

State of Oklahoma v BP 

Scenic Rivers Joint Study CommitteeTulsa County Smelter ComplexHandled numerous citizen complaints regarding environmental and pollution issues 

Oklahoma Environmental Cases 

Mahard Egg Farm - Oklahoma Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Act Claims 

Joint case with Oklahoma, Texas and EPA to clean up a large laying hen operation that was 

over applying poultry waste to land and failing to follow both State and Federal CAFO antipollution laws. Case is now closed other than continued monitoring for Mahard's compliance 

with the Consent Decree. Case resulted in a $1.9 million dollar penalty and lagoon closures, 

better carcass management, ground water monitoring and restricted grazing and field testing at 

numerous Mahard sites. 

TronoxLarge multi-state environmental Bankruptcy Case 

Numerous Environmental Statutes involved 

Natural Resource Damage Claims on behalf of State and Secretary of Environment arising from 

legacy contamination from Kerr McGee at 
988 

5 Sites in Oklahoma and numerous old service station sites 

Resulted in approximately $17,000,000 payout to the State of Oklahoma for Natural Resource 

Damages. 

Kelco Manufacturing : Represented ODWC for mussel kill in the Deep Fork River related to 

pollution released into the river by Kelco in its manufacturing process. Title 27A O.S.§ 1-3-101 

(H)(1) and 29 O.S. § 7--401a, $30,000 payout to the State of Oklahoma and requires Kelco to 

restock approximately 15,000 freshwater mussels. 

Plains & Eastern Clean Line 

700 mile wind transmission line from Oklahoma Panhandle to Tennessee. Research and 

meetings with Clean Line and citizens to discover potential environmental and other issues 

regarding the proposed project 

Kent Feeds El Reno Fish Kill: Represented ODWC for fish kill caused by waste grain discharge 

into North Canadian River $5000 payout to the State of Oklahoma 

FEMA Flood Zone- Research and meet with citizens regarding issues regarding FEMA flood 

zone redistricting 

Southern Towing- Port of Catoosa Fish Kill: Represent ODWC for fish kill (37,000 pounds of 

fish) that occurred from a chemical leak from a barge in the Port of Catoosa. Resulted in a 

payment to the ODWC for the fish killed 

State of Oklahoma v Tyson Foods et a!; Poultry litigation case filed and tried before Judge 

Frizzell by former AG Drew Edmondson. Have continued to monitor the case and meet with the 

parties throughout AG Pruitts tenure. 

Apco -CERCLA Superfund Cleanup Case 

Represented ODEQ & Sec of Environment for response costs & NRD for the cleanup of a 

shuttered oil refinery. Cleanup included removing the refinery structure and the remediation of 

oil waste pits and other contaminants. Case is now closed, resulted in a $700,000 settlement 

with the State of Oklahoma for Natural Resource damages and $900,000 to the State of 

Oklahoma and ODEQ for response costs settlement. 

Michelin/BFG • Environmental dean up case RCRA & CERCLA, represent ODEQ and Sec of 

Environment in ongoing remediation efforts to clean up contamination and benzene plume at 

the closed BFG tire plant in Miami, OK. Also working with the City of Miami. (Case is ongoing, 

demolition of many structures is complete, Michelin agreed under a Consent Decree and Tolling 

Agreement to clean up the site, work is ongoing.) 

Blackwell Zinc - Represented and worked with ODEQ and Secretary of Environment in cleanup 

of Blackwell Zinc smelter site. (Resulted in remediation of affected soils and yards in Blackwell, 

ales blood lead level testing of children in Blackwell. 
989 

Fansteel: Represented the State in cleanup of Fansteel site along the Arkansas River near 

Muskogee. Also worked with Nuclear Regulatory Comm. In 201212013, Fansteel continued to 

have difficulty meeting its obligations to FMRI. In order to facilitate ongoing remediation, 

beginning in 2014, the NRC, DOJ, and Oklahoma DEQ entered into a series of Forbearance 

Agreements with Fansteel and FMRI that detailed financial and technical expectations while 

offering Fansteel temporary financial relief. Despite these and other actions taken by Fansteel, 

in September 2016 Fansteel again filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11. 

Sequoyah Fuels Corp. - Ongoing remediation efforts in conjunction with the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. Represent ODEQ and Sec of Environment in implementing site restoration plan 

and cleanup of radioactive materials at former fuel plant. Ongoing efforts to either remove or 

dispose on site raffinate sludge material and then closure of the disposal cell. 

Tulsa Fuels- CERCLA Superfund Site, Collinsville, OK Cleanup of former zinc smelter site, 

hazardous chemicals in soil, sediment and surface water. A zinc smelter operated at the site 

from 1914 to 1925. Historical smelting operations contaminated soil, sediment and surface 

water with hazardous chemicals. EPA selected a cleanup plan for the site. Construction of the 

remedy began in August 2014 and was completed in September 2016. 

State of Oklahoma v Conoco Phillips 

State of Oklahoma v BP 

Underground storage tank indemnity fund cases. Resulted in a settlement with Conoco Phillips 

Tar Creek- CERCLA Superfund Case, NRD Claim, represent ODEQ & OSE 

Memberflegal Representation of Tar Creek Trustee Counsel & Tri-State Counsel 

Ongoing negotiations with mining companies on response costs settlement and drafting NRD 

restoration plan. Also represent the State in the Peabody Energy Bankruptcy for claims arising 

at the Tar Creek site. Large Superfund site contaminated with lead, zinc from an old mining 

district. Ongoing 

Scenic Rivers Joint Study Committee - Drafted the 2nd Statement of Joint Principles and 

Actions Agreement with the State of Arkansas to conduct an independent stressor response 

study of phosphorus levels in Oklahoma's Scenic Rivers. Represent the Oklahoma members of 

the Joint Study Committee. The study is complete and final recommendations are set to be 

made in December 2016. The study supports Oklahoma's contention that its .037 mgfl 

phosphorous standard in its scenic rivers is supported by the best available science. 

Representation of the Environmental Quality Board, the rulemaking body for the Oklahoma 

Department of Environmental Quality 

Tulsa County Smelter Complex - Recently entered into a joint MOU with US DO! and the 

Cherokee Nation to begin a Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan for 
990 

the Tulsa County Smelter Complex -Also represent the State in the Trustee Council for the site. 

Ongoing 

Handled numerous citizen complaints regarding environmental and pollution issues 
991 

The Honorable James Jnhofe 

E. Scorr PRUITT 

ArroHNl<Y GENERAL 

April9, 2015 

Chair. Committee on Environment and Public Works 

41 0 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: ~~~p~rt tor the Frank R:. Lau~enb~rg Ch~mi~~~ Sa'feiy for ihe il"'Centitr/A~ 

Dear Chaii'Jllan l~hpfe an.d ~anki.ng iV!em~!!r 'Eiox\:r: . . ' ... •. 

.,. : 

}' . . ;:.'; 

Ori March 17, 20!5: scv~~i attorneys general wrote (o express 'their s~pport'fo; S.697, 'fhe F~'nk R. 

Lauten berg Chemical Safety for the 21 ''Century Act (the "Act"). Th'is Act will refo"'! the Toxic 

Substances Control Act ("TSCA"). The TCSA has not been substantively arnended since its passage in 

1976. I write to you today to echo their sentiments and share my thoughts on the measure. 

This Act prgposcs significant changes to the TSCA by giving EPA tools to ensl!re \he safety of chemicals 

used in ll.S. commerce and enhancing the protection of public health and the environment. Though I have 

challenged the EPA on various issues, I believe the agency, within the boundaries of its authorities 

provided by Congress, serves a valuable mission to protect human health and preserve the environment. 

The Frank R. Lauten berg Chemical Safety for the 21" Century Act is a· bipWtisan approach that will 

address issues within our national chemical management system. The Act will ensure that new and 

existi.ng chemicals, including those grandfathered under TSCA, receiye an EPA safety review. Such 

review will' strengthen the standard tbr the public h~alih and our environment· s: 697 gmirantees 

prptection.ofthe .r.nost yulm;r!tble.by plnciqg cr.npha~is on the effects of exposure to chemicals on infants, 

childr~iri, preg~ant wo~~n. -torkers, ~nd the elderly. 

. : '·· • •. • . . : . ,; , , . • ~ .... • • . I 

Public dissemination of information aboufchemicals is critical to ensure public' health and safety is 

up_he!d. S. 697 clarifies the restrictions on public dissemination by establishing a common sense balance 
992 

betwe<:n a company's confidential business information (CBI) claim and infotming the public about a 

particular chemical's risks. 

As a defender oftbe primary role given to states under environmental law, I commend Senators David 

Vitter and Tom Udall for ensuring states have a voice at the table. We cannot allow for a one-size fits all 

approaeh on thi• matter, as each state has a variety of factors that make their environmental regulations 

unique. Giving states the abiHry to preemptively apply for a waiver in order to addre£S local condi.tions, 

even when the EPA has already made a detetmination on a chemical, is essential. In addition, when EPA 

has not provided review to certain chemicals, it is vital that states retain the authority to regulate, as 

needed. 

All of these changes will guarantee that EPA is balancing tJte interests of multiple stakeholders while 

making significant improvements to chemicals management and regulation. S. 697 will help EPA 

establish a consistent, national chemical regulatory pragrnm, while still preserving Oklahoma's ability to 

address Inca! and pressing concerns. 

As Oklahoma's Attorney General, lam responsible for protecting the welfare of Oklahoma citizens. This 

Act will give my constituents and Oklahoma businesses confidence that the chemic&ls used throughout 

our society are safe. 

l encourage your committee to quickly consider the measure. 

Cc: Senator Tom Udall 

Senator David Vittc;r 
993 

OKLAHOMA ETHICS COMMISSION 

Glenn Coffee & Associates 

Attn: Ms. Denise Lawson 

Via Email: denise@glenncoffee.com 

January 23,2017 

Re: Open Records Request- Scott Pruitt 1998 Campaign 

Dear Ms. Lawson: 

We received your open records request this morning for all reports filed with the 

Oklahoma Ethics Commission by Scott Pruitt's 1998 campaign. Files from those years are stored 

in off-site storage with limited hours of access. Because of this, we are unable to fulfill your 

request immediately. I appreciate your patience as we process your request. 

Kind regards, 

Geoffrey D. Long 

GENER.AL COUNSEL 

STAT£. CAPITOL • 2300 N. LJ~COL.S B0\ 1f,EVARO • ltOOi\1 8~5 • OKLAHOMA CtTY, OK • 73105 

(405)52J-J45J • FAX: (·W5)511-4905 • F.-\tAlL; t!IHC~ << r:nw ~.t\fu;m 

\\'El!Si'rt:: ~l\\\,f:fHH·::;.pA..GO\' ··~~-
994 

Testimony before the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, 

Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform of the House 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

"Mandate Madness: When Sue and Settle Just Isn't Enough" 

June 28, 20 I 2 

E. Scott Pruitt 

Attorney General 

State of Oklahoma 
995 

Dear Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member Connolly, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, 

Thank you for allowing me to present my concerns on the legal and policy implications 

ofthe U.S, Environmental Protection Agency's actions regarding Regional Haze Regulations 

("RHR"), There are three main points that cause concern among members of my staff, state 

leadership and Oklahoma stakeholders in relation to the EPA's actions: (I) the arbitrary and 

capricious nature of the EPA's preemption and disapproval of the Oklahoma State 

Implementation Plan ("SIP"); (2) the EPA's abrogation of notice and comment requirements 

when it imposes Federal Implementation Plans ("FIP") under the Regional Haze Regulations; 

and (3) the economic cost to states, industry and utility customers from the EPA's illegal actions 

under the Regional Haze Regulations, The EPA's refusal Lo follow its own rules has denied 

states due process and ignored the foundation of cooperative federalism set forth by Congress 

under the Clean Air AcL With the backing of the Obama Administration, the EPA is engaging in 

super legislative activity that Congress has not authorized, resulting in unchecked rule-making 

through questionable consent decrees. These issues are of great importance to the State of 

Oklahoma because Oklahomans value our state's natural resources, which provide sustenance to 

Oklahoma citizens and fuel our economic development. We Lake seriously our responsibility to 

preserve and protect these valuable natural assets so they may be enjoyed by future generations. 

This responsibility requires a delicate balance between environmental and economic interests. 

We must craft our environmental protection objectives with due consideration of the burden 

those objectives place on our economic development and overall well-being. With these 

considerations in mind, the State of Oklahoma submits that Oklahoma stakeholders, not the 

federal agency, should make decisions where outcomes directly affect Oklahomans. 

Page 2 of24 
996 

Background on Oklahoma's Battle against the EPA and the Agency's Abuse of 

Regional Haze Regulations 

In Section 169A of the \977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA), Congress created 

a progmm for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas. This 

section establishes as a national goal the "prevention of any future, and the remedying of any 

existing, impaim1ent of visibility in mandatory Class I federal areas which impairment results 

tl·om manmade air pollution.'' 42 U.S.C. § 7491 (a)(!). Congress recognized that this program 

requires a delicate balance that considers the timing, cost and economic impact of alternative 

methods to achieve such goals. 42 U.S.C. § 7491 (g)( I) (''In determining reasonable progress 

there shall be taken into consideration the costs of compliance, the time necessary for 

compliance, and the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance .... "). 

Congress added Section l69B to the Act in 1990 to address regional haze issues, and in 

1999, EPA promulgated regulations addressing regional haze, 70 Fed. Reg. 39,104 (July 6, 

2005), codified at 40 C.F.R. part 5 l, subpart P ("Regional Haze Regulations" or "RHR"). In 

Section 1698, Congress made clear its intent to delegate significant power to States to develop, 

review, approve, and implement site-specific implementation plans designed to make reasonable 

progress in achieving regional haze goals while balancing each State's unique economic and 

power needs. See, e.g., 123 Cong. Rec. 13,696, 13,709 (1977). EPA has recognized that. because 

the issues to be balanced are uniquely State and source specitic, ''the State must detem1ine the 

appropriate level of BART (best available retrofit technology) control for each source subject to 

BART." 70 f'ed. Reg. at 39,\07. 

Ultimately, the CAA requires dcf'erence to State decision-making. The structure ofCAA 

and RHR create distinct and defined duties of the State and EPA. The EPA is, for instance, 

Page J of24 
997 

charged with promulgating general regulations designed to "assure ... reasonable progress 

toward meeting the national goal." Id. § 7491(a)(4). The EPA must also promulgate the list of 

"mandatory Class I Federal areas" which arc to receive visibility protection under the Act. Id. § 

749l(a)(2). Further. the statute tasks the EPA with providing support to the states by, for 

instance, studying methods for redressing visibility impainmmt and then providing '·guidelines" 

to the states suggesting such appropriate methods. Similarly, under section !698 of the Act, the 

EPA is tasked with studying regional visibility impairment, and convening regional commissions 

comprised of state authorities. ld. § 7492(a)(1), (c). The CAA does not give the EPA authority 

to question the wisdom of a state's choices of emission limitations if they are pmt of a plan that 

satisfies the standards of the Act. 

For more than a decade, Oklahoma Gas & Electric (OG&E) has voluntarily burned low 

sulfur coal with the electrical generating units ("EGUs") at the Muskogee and Sooner Generating 

Stations ("OG&E Units") in order to limit sulfur dioxide emissions (S02). OG&E is 

Oklahoma's largest electricity provider and serves approximately 789,000 customers in 268 

communities in Oklahoma and western Arkansas. Oklahoma Industrial Energy Consumers 

(O!EC) is a non-partisan, unincorporated association of large consumers of energy with facilities 

located in the State of Oklahoma. OIEC members are engaged in energy price-sensitive 

industries such as pulp and paper, cement, refining, glass, industrial gases, plastic, film, and food 

processing. OIEC members employ thousands of Oklahomans. 

On February 17, 2010, the State of Oklahoma submitted to EPA its regional haze 

revisions to the Oklahoma State Implementation Plan ("Oklahoma SIP"). See Oklahoma SIP, 

Doe. ID No. EPA-R06-0AR-201 0-0190-0002 (relevant portions attached hereto as Exhibit 3). 

Alter properly balancing the statutory factors related to regional haze, Oklahoma detennined that 

Page 4 of24 
998 

low sulfur coal constituted BART for S02 emissions from the OG&E Units and proposed a SIP 

that would have made OG&E's continued use ofthat low sulfur coal a mandatory condition of 

operation. In balancing the BART factors, Oklahoma had before it both a 2008 cost analysis for 

the OG&E Units- one that both the EPA and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental 

Quality ("ODEQ") had stated was prepared in confonnity with the EPA Air Pollution Control 

Cost Manual ("CCM")- and a 2009 cost analysis prepared at ODEQ's and EPA's request that 

was more robust and site-specific than the 2008 cost estimate. See id. Both the 2008 Cost 

Analysis and the 2009 Cost Analysis were prepared with the assistance of OG&E's engineering 

consultant, Sargent & Lundy LLC ("S&L"). Oklahoma concluded, based on this and other 

information, that scrubbers were not cost effective for the OG&E Units. 

On March 22, 2011, more than one year after Oklahoma submitted its SIP to the EPA, 

EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register proposing to approve in part and 

disapprove in part the Oklahoma SIP. See Proposed Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 16,168. In the same 

notice, and without waiting for its proposed disapproval of parts of the Oklahoma SIP to become 

final i.e., without waiting for and considering public comments on its proposed disapproval of 

portions of the Oklahoma SIP EPA proposed a FIP to substitute its judgment for the judgment 

of Oklahoma on certain key issues statutorily delegated to Oklahoma, including the BART 

determinations for the OG&E Units. 

On May 23,201 l, the State of Oklahoma, OIEC, and OG&E (among others) separately 

submitted extensive legal, policy, and technical comments to EPA opposing its proposed action 

and arguing that, for numerous reasons, the FPA's proposed action was contrary to the CAA and 

RHR and was otherwise arbitrary and capricious. Despite these comments, EPA published the 

Final Rule with respect to the Oklahoma SIP on December 28,2011, disapproving the State's 

Page 5 of24 
999 

S02 BART determinations for the OG&E Units and tor two units at another facility in the State. 

See 76 Fed. Reg. 81,728. EPA then simultaneously finalized the Oklahoma FIP that imposed an 

S02 emission limit of0.06 ibs/MMBtu for each OG&E Unit, which would require the 

installation of a scrubber at each affected unit by January 27,2017. Moreover, in support of the 

FIP, EPA adopted entirely new approaches not contained within its proposed rule without proper 

notice and the opportunity to comment, in violation of APA requirements. 

On December 28, 2011, EPA published a final rule with respect to the Oklahoma SIP, 

disapproving the State's S02 BART determinations for the four OG&E units and for two units at 

another facility in the State based on EPA's O'~'<'Il balancing of the five statutory factors. See 

Partial Approval of Oklahoma SIP and Promulgation ofFIP, 76 Fed. Reg. 81,728 (Dec. 28, 

2011) {"Final Rule"), JA 23. Petitioners filed requests for reconsideration with EPA in February 

2012, but no action has been taken on those requests. The Final Rule both disapproved the 

Oklahoma SIP provisions that set out BART for the OG&E Units and promulgated a FIP, 

substituting EPA's own BART determination in place of the State's. 

On February 24, 2012, the State of Oklahoma tiled its Petition tor Review in the Tenth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. On April4, 2012, the State of Oklahoma tiled a Joint Motion for a 

Stay of the Final Rule. 

On June 15,2012, Oklahoma filed its Joint Opening Brief in the Tenth Circuit Court of 

Appeals to resolve the pressing issues surrounding the EPA's abuse of the RHR, CAA, and 

rulcmaking procedures. On June 22,2012, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the 

Petitioners Joint Motion for Stay of the Final Rule, concluding that the stay factors had been 

Page 6 of24 
1000 

met. 1 The stay was granted pending a hearing by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals merits 

paneL 

a. The Role of the States 

The role of the states under the CAA's visibility program is unique, as provided by 

sections l69A and J69B of the CAA. Unlike other programs where the states' role is to 

implement federally established standards, under the visibility program, the states have primary 

responsibility for establishing standards. In particular, the states are charged with developing 

emissions limitations after balancing a number offaetors. The EPA's role under this program is 

simply one of support. Accordingly, the EPA must treat with special deference the 

determinations of a state, as embodied in a state's proposed Regional Haze SIP. States also are 

tasked with determining "such emission limits, schedules of compliance and other measures as 

may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal .... " !d. § 

749l(b)(2). States are responsible for determining best available retrofit technology for BARTeligible facilities. !d. § 749J(b)(2)(A). The states define the long-term strategy tor making 

reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal. !d.§ 7491(b)(2){B). And it is the states, 

in consultation with one another, who are directed to assess the interstate transport of visibility 

impairing emissions and to decide what measures are necessary to address regional haze. !d. § 

7492(d). Congress believed it important that states retain wide latitude in choosing how best to 

achieve national standards, given local needs and conditions. In addition to plain statutory 

language and the case law interpreting this language, the legislative history behind the Regional 

Haze Rule also is clear that Congress intended to vest individual states with broad authority to 

make BART determinations. For example, the following exchange occurred during the U.S. 

' The stay factors are" !. Petitioners Are Likely To Succeed on the Merits II. Petitioners Will Suffer Irreparable 

Ham1 Absent a Stay 111. The Balance of Equities Favors Granting Petitioner' Stay Request, and Granting a Stay is in 

the Public Interest. 

Page 7 of24 
1001 

Senate debate preceding adoption of the Conference Agreement behind Section 169A of the 

CAA: 

Mr. McClure: Under the conference agreement, docs the state retain the sole authority 

for identification of sources for the purpose of visibility issues under this section? 

Mr. Muskie: Yes; the State, not the Administrator, identifies a source that may impair 

visibility and thereby falls within the requirement of section 128. 

Mr. McClure: And does this also hold true for determination of "Best Available Retrofit 

Technology?" 

Mr. Muskie: Yes; here again it is the State which determines what constitutes "Best 

Available Retrofit Technology," as defined in section 128 ..... 

123 CONG. REC. S 13696, S l3 709 (1977). 

Consistent with this legislative intent, EPA itself has explained that "the State must 

determine the appropriate level of BART control for each source subject to BART." 70 Fed. 

Reg. at 39, l 07. The EPA has even acknowledged that "(i]n some cases, the State may 

determine that a source has already installed sufficiently stringent emission controls for 

compliance with other programs ... such that no additional controls would be needed for 

compliance with the BART requirement." Regional Haze Regulations, 64 Fed. Reg. 35,7!4, 

35,740 (July l, 1999). The EPA also has acknowledged that "the State retains the primary 

responsibility of developing a viable visibility program" consistent with the goal established in 

section 169 A (a). This responsibility includes "final authority for the development of the SIP, 

BART determinations, and implementation of the visibility program" in light of the goals of the 

Act. See Am. Com Growers Ass'n v. E.P.A., 291 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2002). 

Page 8 of24 
1002 

b. Limitations on EPA's authority 

The content of the EPA's regulations and guidance and their deference to State decisionmaking is no accident. These rules stem from the 2002 opinion of the D.C. Circuit in American 

Corn Growers. That case involved a challenge to EPA's 1999 regional haze rules. See 64 Fed. 

Reg. 3 5714 (July I, 1999). The co uti confinncd the primacy of the states by invalidating EPA's 

rule on the grounds that it impermissibly constrained state authority. See Am. Corn Growers 

Ass'n, 291 F.3d at 8 (EPA's rule is invalid because it is "inconsistent with the Act's provisions 

giving the states broad authority over BART determinations"). The D.C. Circuit relied on, in 

part, the legislative history of the CAA's visibility provisions in reaching this conclusion. 

Summarizing H.R. CONF. REP. NO. 95-564, the court stated: 

The Conference Report thus contirms that Congress intended the states to decide which 

sources impair visibility and what BART controls should apply to those sources. The 

Haze Rule attempts to deprive the states of some of this statutory authority, in 

contravention of the Act. !d. (emphasis added). 

The EPA therefore, cannot, through either approving or disapproving a SIP. interfere 

with the state's primary role in determining how national ambient air quality standards should be 

met under the CAA. 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 7401 et seq. As long as the ultimate effect of a state's 

choice of emission limitations is compliant with the national standards for ambient air, the state 

is at liberty to adopt whatever mix of emission limitations it deems best suited to its particular 

situation. Reviewing the history of section 110, and judicial interpretations of it, the court in 

Commonwea!Jh of Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. noted that as section 110 stood 

in I 975, and as it stood aller the 1977 and 1990 amendments, the provision did not confer upon 

the EPA authority to condition approval of a state implementation plan on the state's adoption of 

specific control measures. See 108 F.Jd l397(D.C. Cir. 1997). Although the EPA has the 

authority to dctcm1inc whether a state's plan meets the Act's requirements for approval (42 

Page 9 of24 
1003 

U.S.C.A. § ll O(a)(2)), courts have held that the agency cannot tell the states what measures they 

should employ in meeting the requirements. (42 U.S.C.A. § 7410) 

In Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council. fnc., 421 U.S. 60 (1975) the U.S. 

Supreme Court found that although the CAA plainly charges the EPA with the responsibility for 

setting the national ambient air quality standards, the Act, just as plainly, relegates the EPA to a 

secondary role in the process of determining and enforcing the specific, source-by-source 

emission limitations that are necessary if the national standards are to be met. According to the 

Court, the Act gives the agency no authority to question the wisdom of a state's choices of 

emission limitations if they are part of a plan that satisfies the standards of §llO(a)(2), and the 

agency may devise and promulgate a specific plan of its own only if a state fails to submit an 

implementation plan that satisfies those standards. The Court stated; 

"So long as the ultimate effect of a State's choice of emission limitations is compliance 

with the national standards tbr ambient air, the State is at liberty to adopt whatever mix of 

emission limitations it deems best suited to its particular situation." 

ld at 79. 

The CAA then "establishes a partnership between EPA and the states tbr the attainment 

and maintenance of national air quality goals.'' Narural Res. De.f Council, Inc. v. Browner, 57 

F.3d 1122, 1123 (D.C. Cir. 1995). "Air pollution prevention ... at its source is the primary 

responsibility of States and local governments .... " 42 U.S.C. § 740l(a)(3). Congress "carefully 

balanced State and national interests by providing for a fair and open process in which State and 

local governments, and the people they represent, will be free to carry out the reasoned weighing 

of environmental and economic goals and needs." 

The CAA specifically vests states with the primary authority to detennine BART by 

weighing tl1e five statutory criteria set Jbrth in 42 U.S.C., section 7491 (g)(2). CAA Section 

Page 10 of24 
1004 

!69A provides that ''in determining [BART] the State (or the Administrator in determining 

emission limitations which reflect such technology) shall take into consideration (the five BART 

factors].'' 42 U.S.C. § 7491 (g)(2). Section 169A also provides that sources subject to BART 

"shall procure, install, and operate, as expeditiously as practicable (and maintain thereafter) the 

[BART], as uetem1ined by the State (or the Administrator in the case of a plan promulgated 

under section 74! O(c) of this title) .... " 42 U.S.C. §§ 749l(b)(2)(A). The EPA may disapprove 

a SIP and issLle a FIP under section 7410(c) only where the State's SIP fails to meet minimum 

CAA requirements. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k)(3). Tn the case of regional haze, the CAA requires only 

that States weigh the five statutory factors and arrive at a reasonable understanding of BART 

requirements. 42 U.S.C. § 7491 (g)(2). 

As stated above, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has reviewed the EPA's 

authority under the Regional Haze progran1 and agreed that the CAA "calls for states to play the 

lead role in designing and implementing regional haze programs.'' Am. Corn Growers Ass'n. 291 

F.3d l, at 2. In 2002. the court reversed a p011ion of the EPA's original Regional Haze Rule that 

required states to analyze visibility improvements from multiple sources, rather than on a sourceby-source basis, when determining BART requirements. The court held that the EPA could not 

require the states to evaluate one BART factor collectively while mandating that the other four 

factors be evaluated separately for individual sources. In addition to distorting the statutory 

factors, the court thought the EPA's approach was "inconsistent with the Act's provisions giving 

the states broad authority over BART determinations." I d. at 8; see also Utility Air Regulatory 

Group v. E.P.A., 471 F. 3d 1333, 1336 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (The second step in a BART 

determination "requires states to determine the particular technology that an individual source 

subject to BART must install.") 

Page 11 of24 
1005 

I. The Arbitrary and Capricious Nature of the EPA's Preemption and Disapproval of 

Oklahoma's SIP 

The CAA directs the States- not the EPA- to determine the appropriate level of 

BART to regulate regional haze. The EPA's proposed Federal Implementation Plan ("FIP") as it 

pertains to the disapproval of portions of the State Implementation Plan ("SIP") as to best 

available retrofit technology ("BART") and the long-term strategy ("LTS") is in violation of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) and the discretion and authority granted to the State under that Act. In its 

quest to issue a Federal Implementation Plan ("FIP") that requires Oklahoma Gas and Electric 

Company ("OG&E") to spend over $1.2 billion to install dry flue gas desu!furization technology 

("scrubbers") on four electric generating units in the next five years to address aesthetic concerns 

about regional haze, the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") eviscerated the authority and 

discretion given to the State of Oklahoma by the Clean Air Act ("CAA'' or" Act"). In 

substituting its judgment for the judgment of the State, EPA illegally usurps the broad authority 

given by Congress to the States to make best available retrofit technology ("BART") 

determinations for regional haze. See 42 U.S.C. § 7491. The Oklahoma SIP included a statespecific balancing of BART factors that considered Oklahoma's unique energy and economic 

needs; a balancing that EPA is neither equipped nor authorized to conduct. Instead, EPA 

improperly mandated its desired outcome in place of Oklahoma's considered judgment as to the 

appropriate BART for facilities in the state. 

The CAA and RHR set forth the process that must be followed in determining BART, but 

neither requires any specific outcome. Thus, the CAA and RHR require, in part, that a State 

balance five factors in making a BART determination for each qualifying facility.2 EPA 

1 The live BART factors are: (i) the costs of compliance; (ii) the energy and nonair quality environmental 

impacts of compliance; (iii) any existing pollution control technology in use at the source; (iv) the 

Pagel2of24 
1006 

recognizes that "States are free to detennine the weight and significance to be assigned each 

factor." Proposed Oklahoma BART Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 16,168, 16,174 (Mar. 22, 2011) 

(''Proposed Rule"). EPA further acknowledges that "[i]n some cases, the State may determine 

that ... no additional controls would be needed for compliance with the BART requirement." 

Original Regional Haze Regulations, 64 Fed. Reg. 35,714, 35,740 (July l, 1999). 

The CAA and RHR require that States, not EPA, have the primary role in implementing 

the regional haze program, including making BART determinations. See. e.g .. CAA § 

l69A(b)(2)(A), (g)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 7491(b)(2)(A), (g)(2) ("in determining [BART] the state (or 

the Administrator in determining emission limitations which reflect such technology) shall take 

into consideration [the BART factorsrJ (emphasis added). The states are directed to define the 

long-term strategy and BART, one component of the long-term strategy, under the Act. It is the 

states that are required to consider and balance the five factors relevant to a BART 

determination. See id. § 7491 (g)(2). The scope of state discretion is further confirmed in FPA 

guidance, which states that "[r}he glide path [ro rhe national goal} is not a presumptive target. 

and Stales may eslablish a RPG [reasonable progress goal} that provides for greater, lesser, or 

equivalent visibilily improvement as !hat described by the glide pal h." Guidancefi>r Selling 

Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program at 1·3 (June!, 2007)(emphasis 

added). 

The EPA Proposed Rule ignores the plain language of the CAA and the Court of 

Appeals' recognition of the states' dominant role in determining 13ART in an effort to advance 

EPA's preference for scrubbers on all EGUs. EPA does not have authority to disapprove a SIP 

simply because it disagrees with a state's choice in emission control measures for specific 

remaining useful life of the source; and (v) the degree of improvement in visibility that may be expected 

as a result of such technology. 2 U.S.C. § 749l(g)(2); 40 C.F.R. § 51.J08(cXl)(ii). 

Page 13 of24 
1007 

sources. Florida Power & Light Co. v. Cost/e, 650 f.2d 579, 581 (5th Cir. 1981) ("If an [sic] SIP 

or a revised SIP meets the statutory criteria, however, the EPA must approve it"). 

The EPA is proposing to take an action that usurps authority granted to Oklahoma in the 

Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act created a Regional Haze program to improve visibility in 

c~rtain national parks and wilderness areas. The EPA can set national goals and guidelines for 

the program, but individual states have the authority to craft plans specific to and appropriate i(>r 

their state's citizens and interests. Each state has the right to select the best control technology 

("BART") tor sources of emissions that contribute to regional haze, taking into consideration 

five specific factors, including costs of control. Oklahoma chose the technologies that are 

appropriate for its sources in light of these live factors and submitted an implementation plan to 

EPA in February 2010. In particular, Oklahoma dete1mined that low sultur coal was the cost 

d'fective way to control sulfur dioxide emissions to address haze issues. A benefit of this 

detennination is that it gives state utilities greater flexibility to switch to generating electricity 

with natural gas or renewable sources. The state determined that installing scrubbers now is not 

cost effective and would lock the utilities into buming coal for the next 20 years. 

On March 22, 20!1, EPA proposed to reject the state's determination and substitute its 

own judgment for the state's via implementation of its proposed FlP.3 The EPA proposed to 

select scrubbers as the best technology for the relevant sources in Oklahoma. The adoption of a 

Federal Plan would go beyond the authority granted to the EPA by the Clean Air Act because the 

3 On March 23, 20 II The State of Oklahoma submitted to the Administrator oft he EPA a Notice of Intent 

to tile suit pursuant to Clean Air Act section 304 (b)(2), 42 U.S.C. section 7604 (b)(2) and 40 C.F.R. Pmt 

54, for the EPA's failure to perform nondiscretionary duties. The suit against the EPA will be filed 

because the EPA was not authorized to propose a FIP for regional haze in Oklahoma on March 22, 2011, 

as no final action has been taken regarding Oklahoma's SIP. ln addition, the window for EPA to propose 

a regional haze FIP was not open on March 22"". The EPA has violated its nondiscretionary duty to 

honor the time constraints provided in Section 1!0 (c) of the CAA and 42 U.S.C. § 741 O(c) regarding the 

promulgation of a FIP. 

Page 14 of24 
1008 

EPA does not have the power to question the state's detetmination as long as the state relied on 

the proper factors in making it, which Oklahoma did. It is estimated that the emission controls 

required by EPA will cost approximately $2 billion to install and result in a 15%- 20% increase 

in residential electric rates. 

EPA may disapprove a SIP and promulgate a F!P only where a State's SIP fails to meet 

minimum CAA requirements. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k)(3); see also Train 1•. Natural Res. Def 

Council, 421 U.S. 60, 79 ( 1975). The RHR and BART guidelines issued by EPA, 70 Fed. Reg. 

39,104 (July 6. 2005), require only that States engage in the process of weighing the five 

statutory factors in determining BART for eligible sources in a manner consistent with the RHR, 

and that "States are free to detem1ine the weight and significance to be assigned to each factor." 

See 76 Fed. Reg. 16,168, 16, 174 (Mar. 22, 201 J ). As the Oklahoma SIP clearly shows, 

Oklahoma did properly engage in that process in making its BART determinations for the OG&E 

Units. 

Oklahoma submitted its' SIP to EPA long before EPA proposed the Oklahoma FIP, and 

with a full record. Since ODEQ applied the statutory factors in promulgating the Oklahoma SIP, 

EPA was not free to reject Oklahoma's BART determinations with respect to the OG&E Units 

and promulgate a FIP substituting its judgment for that of the State. 

As previously set forth, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has affirmed that 

EPA's role in detetmining regional haze plans is limited, stating that the CAA "calls for states to 

play the lead role in designing and implementing regional haze programs."' Am. Corn Growers 

Ass 'n v. EPA, 291 F.3d I, 2 (D.C. Cir. 2002). The Court reversed a portion of EPA's original 

RHR because it found that EPA's method of analyzing visibility improvements distorted the 

statutory factors and was "inconsistent with the Act's provisions giving the states broad authority 

Page 15 of24 
1009 

over BART determinations." ld. at 8 (emphasis added); see also Uli!ily Air Group v. EPA, 471 

F.3d 1333, 1336 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (The second step in a BART detem1ination "requires states to 

detem1ine the particular technology that an individual source 'subject to BART' must install"). 

EPA lacks the authority to disapprove the Oklahoma SIP merely because it disagrees with 

Oklahoma's choice in emission controls for specific sources. 

The CAA gave Oklahoma the right to conduct this analysis and make a determination 

without being second-guessed by EPA. Oklahoma exercised the authority granted by the CAA 

and determined that "[t]he cost for [scrubbers] is too high, the benefit too low and these costs, if 

borne, further extend the life expectancy of coal as the primary fuel in the Sooner facility for at 

least 20 years and beyond. BART is the continued usc of low sulfur coal.'' See Ex. 3, Oklahoma 

SIP, App. 6-5, Item I, Sooner 13ART Review at p. 29, and Muskogee BART Review at p. 29. 

EPA second guessed Oklahoma's authority by rejecting significant portions of the 2009 

site-specific costs estimates, in many instances simply assuming, without verifying, that they 

resulted in the double counting of expenses. While OG&E disputes EPA's conclusion regarding 

the 2009 cost estimates, once EPA reached the conclusion that the CCM estimates should 

control, the proper response by EPA should have been to return to the 2008 cost estimates, which 

both EPA and ODEQ had stated complied with the CCM and which support the State's BART 

determinations for the OG&E Units. EPA's attempt to create a hybrid cost estimate by 

selectively modifying the 2009 estimate resulted in cost estimates that were neither site-specific 

and real (like OG&E's 2009 cost estimates) nor reflective of the CCM general estimates (like 

OG&E's 2008 cost estimates). EPA's "cherry-picking" approach to the cost estimates for the 

OG&E Units in order to justify its predetermined conclusion that scrubbers were BART was, 

therefore, arbitrary and capricious. 

Page 16 of24 
1010 

Despite the Act's exclusive assignment to the States of the authority to weigh the 

statutory factors, EPA nonetheless disputes Oklahoma's cost effectiveness analysis and seeks to 

use the assumptions and speculation of its consultant as the basis for disapproval of the 

Oklahoma SIP. EPA's principle contention is that the 2009 site-specific cost estimates 

considered by Oklahoma did not comply with the CCM. To reach that result, however, EPA (i) 

ignored the 2008 cost estimates that it had acknowledged were prepared in accordance with the 

CCM; (ii) rejected the 2009 estimates by giving preference to the assumptions and speculation of 

its consultant over the judgment of the State; and (iii) manipulated the inputs for the cost 

effectiveness calculation by ignoring the requirements of its own guidelines and basic 

engineering principles. Even beyond these fundamental !laws in EPA's cost effectiveness review 

of the Oklahoma SIP, the separate cost analysis conducted by EPA's consultant was not 

supported by the record and was arbitrary in its approach. At the san1e time, EPA took an 

improper approach to visibility improvement designed to overstate the benefits from the 

installation of scrubbers. The fundamental flaws in EPA's cost-effectiveness analysis not only 

demonstrate that its disapproval of the Oklahoma SIP was arbitrary and capricious, but also 

preclude a finding that EPA had a reasoned and proper basis for the FIP. 

"States have llexibility in how they calculate costs." 70 Fed. Reg. at 39,127. Where the 

RHR give States flexibility and Congress has designated that States take the dominant role in 

determining BART, EPA is not tree to undercut the State's reasonable exercise of that flexibility, 

particularly by substituting its own arbitrary approach. EPA illegally usurped State authority in 

violation of the plain language of the Act when it rejected Oklahoma's BART determination for 

the OG&E Units and. thus, the FIP is unlawful. In addition, because EPA published a notice that 

certain States, including Oklahoma, had initially failed to meet the deadline for submitting 

Page !7 of24 
1011 

regional haze SIPs, the CAA tmequivocally imposed a two-year requirement for EPA to issue a 

FIP. See 42 U.S.C. § 7410(c); Gen. Molars v. United States, 496 U.S. 530,537 (1990) (citing 

CAA §IIO(c) as an example of"explicit deadlines" established by the CAA). It is undisputed 

that EPA failed to promulgate a FIP within that two-year window. Thus, EPA's attempt to 

promulgate the Oklahoma FIP outside that two-year window, without first providing a new 

notice to re-open the two-year window for doing so, was contrary to the Act. Clearly, the EPA is 

going beyond its authority and abusing its power by ove!Tegulating in areas statutorily regulated 

by the States. 

As previously noted. Oklahoma has the primary authority to determine 13ART and, 

pursuant to EPA's own guidelines, this primacy extends to the cost analysis, where the State is 

given ·'t1exibility in how [it] determines costs.'' 70 Fed. Reg. at 39,127. Oklahoma's cost 

analysis, set fo11h in the Oklahoma SIP, clearly meets statutory requirements. Even if EPA was 

authorized to second guess Oklahoma's judgment, EPA has not articulated any sound or 

reasonable basis for rejecting Oklahoma's considered judgment regarding the appropriate costs 

to consider. 

II. The EPA's Abrogation of Notice and Comment Requirements When Imposing 

FIP's 

The Final Rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 551, et. 

seq., because it introduces and relics upon rules or approaches not previously discussed in the 

proposed rule. See 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3) (requiring agencies to give notice of"the terms or 

substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved."). "To satisfy 

the APA 's notice requirement, ... an agency's tina I mle need only be a logical outgrowth of its 

notice." CSX Tramp., Inc. v. Surface Transp. Bd, 584 FJd 1076, 1079 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (internal 

Page 18 of24 
1012 

quotations and citations omitted). However, ''a tina! rule fails the logical outgrowth test and thus 

violates the APA's notice requirement where interested parties would have had to divine the 

agency's unspoken thoughts because the final rule was surprisingly distant from the proposed 

rule." Jd (vacating portion of agency's final rule for violating APA's notice requirements) 

(internal quotations and citations omitted). Here, Oklahoma had no means by which to divine 

EPA's introduction of several new outcome determinative approaches set forth for the first time 

in the Final Rule and, therefore, had no opportunity to properly comment on or present evidence 

regarding them. The issues raised by the use of these new approaches are particularly important 

in this case because they tread on areas that the CAA commits to the discretion of the State in the 

t!rst instance. 

EPA's issuance of the Oklahoma FJP was also procedurally defective because of its 

timing. First, the CAA does not give EPA authority to propose a FIP prior to final disapproval of 

the Oklahoma SIP. The Act, moreover, requires that EPA give Oklahoma a reasonable 

opportunity to cure any alleged defects in a disapproved SIP. CAA Section 11 O(c)(l )(A) allows 

promulgation of a FIP after EPA "finds that the plan or plan revision submitted by the State does 

not satisfY the minimum criteria established under suhsection (k)(l)(A) of this section or ... 

disapproves a State implementation plan submission in whole or in part." 42 U.S.C. § 

7410(c)(1). Section 110(c) also states that EPA shall propose a FIP "unless the State corrects the 

deliciency," thereby reflecting Congress's intention for States to have the power to design their 

own SIP and have an opportunity to correct a SIP before a FIP is issued. § 741 O(c). Simultaneous 

promulgation of the FIP is also inconsistent with the Act's definition of a FIP. A FIP is defined 

as a plan "to fill all or a portion of a gap or otherwise correct all or a portion of an inadequacy in 

Page 19 of24 
1013 

a State implementation plan." § 7602(y). Thus, a FIP cannot properly exist until after final action 

bas been taken on a State's SIP. 

CAA § 307(d)(3) requires that "[t]he statement of basis and purpose" that must 

accompany each proposed FIP include a summary of "the factual data on which the proposed 

rule is based" and "the major legal interpretations and policy considerations underlying the 

proposed rule." 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(3). EPA cannot credibly claim to be able to present the 

relevant factual, legal, and policy information and rationale to justify a proposed FIP before it 

has: (1) determined whether and to what extent the Oklahoma SIP may be deficient and unapprovable; (2) provided the public with an adequate explanation of any such determination in a 

proposed EPA rule on SIP approval or disapproval that is published for public review and 

comment; (3) received, considered, and responded to public comments on the proposed action; 

and (4) made a final determination and taken final action to disapprove the SIP in whole or in 

part. 

This due order of action by EPA is important because, as demonstrated by the discussion 

above regarding cost effectiveness, EPA's authority when reviewing a Regional Haze SIP is 

much different than its authority when promulgating a FIP. Because the CAA delegates the 

power to detennine BART exclusively to the States, the fact that EPA would take a different 

approach or reach a diiTerent conclusion is irrelevant to its approval or disapproval of a Regional 

Haze SIP. Yet, ifEPA is allowed to take final action on such a SIP at the same time that it issues 

a FIP, it can blur this distinction and impennissibly use the FIP process to impose its preferences 

with respect to the five statutory BART factors onto the States. 

Second, because EPA published a notice that States, including Oklahoma, had failed to 

meet the statutory deadline for submitting regional haze SIPs, it is undisputed that the CAA 

Page 20 of24 
1014 

unequivocally imposes a two-year limit on EPA's ability to take such action. ,)'ee 42 U.S.C. § 

7410(c)(l); Gen. Motors v. United States, 496 U.S. 530, 537 (l990)(citing CAA § llO(c) as 

example of"explicit deadlines" established by the CAA). It is also undisputed that EPA failed to 

promulgate a FIP within that two-year window. Thus, EPA's attempt to promulgate the 

Oklahoma FlP outside that two-year window, without first providing a new notice to re-open the 

two-year window for doing so, was contrary to the Act. 

The new "overnight" cost method used by EPA to detennine the cost effectiveness of 

scrubbers is at the core of EPA's Final Rule, both in disapproving the Oklahoma SIP and in 

justifying its FIP. EPA's failure to raise these new approaches as justification for its proposed 

actions in the Proposed Rule deprived Petitioners of the right and opportunity to comment on 

them. It was, therefore, improper under the APA and it deprived the State of the authority 

delegated to it by the CAA to detennine the reasonable and appropriate methods for evaluating 

costs in making BART dctcnninations. EPA's Final Rule is fatally defective because of its 

failure to provide notice of this new approach and allow comment on it. 

The Final Rule also reveals, for the first time, EPA's new methodology to determining 

visibility improvement-the so-called "number of days" approach. 76 Fed. Reg. at 81,736. 

Again, because this approach was not raised by EPA in the Proposed Rule, the Final Rule is 

fatally defective. Because the Final Rule fails the logical outgrowth test, Petitioners' challenges 

to the Oklahoma FIP arc likely to succeed, justifying a stay of the FIP. 

The administrative record shows that EPA's "nothing but scrubbers" approach led it to 

reject a final regional haz.e state implementation plan ("SIP") that Oklahoma sent to EPA over a 

year before EPA proposed to adopt the FIP. The only way that EPA could achieve this 

predetermined outcome was to ignore the Act and its own guidance and violate the 

Page2l of24 
1015 

Administrative Procedures Act (''APA") by raising and relying on new rules and methodologies 

for the first time in its tina! rule adopting the FIP, For EPA to accomplish this objective, it had to 

ignore its own policies and procedures for making these detem1inations and, in the Final Rule, 

usc new approaches regarding cost effectiveness and visibility improvement that it had not 

identified in the proposed rule. This approach precluded public comment and violated 

Petitioners' procedural rights. 

The RHR require States to submit their BART detetminations, along with other required 

clements, as SIP revisions to EPA for approval (''Regional Haze SIPs''). EPA may disapprove a 

Regional Haze SIP and issue a FIP only when a SIP fails to meet all of the applicable 

requirements of the Act. 42 U.S.C. § 741 O(k)(3). In this instance, the applicable requirements are 

that the emission limitations developed to address regional haze be developed pursuant to the 

evaluation process and balancing of the BART factors set out in the CAA and RHR. 42 U.S. C.§ 

749J(b). 

III. Economic Costs Associated with the EPA's Illegal Actions Under the Regional Haze 

Program 

The EPA's action is sure to raise the costs of electricity to consumers, with a 

corresponding loss ofjobs and economic activity. EPA's illegal adoption of the Final Rule will 

have an immediate and irreparable impact on the State whose CAA authority has been 

eviscerated by EPA's actions. Likewise, electricity consumers in Oklahoma will face significant 

electricity rate increases as a result of the costs imposed by the Final Rule. 

Oklahoma has demonstrated the substantial economic impact EPA's Final Rule would 

have on the State. OG&E will be required to expend significant resources immediately in order 

to implement the installation of the scrubbers with any chance of meeting the five year deadline, 

Page 22 of24 
1016 

and just in the first two years, the costs will exceed $200 million. Even if OG&E were able to 

roll some of those costs into its rate structure. this will have an obvious adverse ctTect on the 

citizens of Oklahoma who have to pay those higher electricity rates. In today's economic 

climate, those very real economic impacts of EPA's FIP cannot and should not be ignored. 

IV. Conclusion 

First, as noted above, Congress designated the State as the principle decision maker for 

BART detenninations and regional haze programs. The EPA's actions here deprive Oklahoma of 

the ability to fashion a regional haze program that balances costs and visibility improvement in a 

manner that is appropriate for the citizens and economy of this State. The EPA's actions 

undermine the State's authority and damage the ability of Oklahoma to fulfill its regulatory 

function as created by Congress. 

Second, as noted above, the EPA's abrogation of notice and comments when imposing 

FIP's on Oklahoma violates key and foundational principles ofrulemaking. 

Finally, if some of these costs are imposed on consumers in Oklahoma, the increased 

electricity rates will have an adverse economic impact with consumers paying higher rates 

directly and businesses looking to pass their higher costs to their customers. Indeed, as a large 

electricity consumer, the State too will feel the direct economic impact ofhigber rates. Neither 

the State nor its citizens has recomsc for such unnecessary costs. Thus, iJTcparable hann will 

result from continuation of the cuJTent effective date for the Oklahoma FIP. 

The State of Oklahoma has properly exercised its discretion under the CAA's visibility 

program to establish a long-term strategy tbr the reduction of visibility impairing pollutants, 

including the selection of BART. The EPA's proposed action disregards clear congressional 

intent that primary regulatory authority under the visibility program rests with the States. The 

Page 23 of24 
1017 

EPA's proposal would impose the EPA's policy judgments based on the EPA's balancing of 

factors where it has no authority to do so. The EPA does not have the right under the Clean Air 

Act to substitute its judgment for that of the state when it comes to determination of the best 

control technology for sources in the state. 

E. SCOTT PRUITT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA 

Page 24 of24 
1018 

Testimony before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on 

Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements 

"Oversight ofiRS's Legal Basis for Expanding Obamacare's Taxes and Subsidies" 

July 31,2013 

E. Scott Pruitt 

Attorney General 

State of Oklahoma 

Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member Speier, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to appear before you today to present concerns on 

the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, and the legal and economic implications of 

actions taken by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, the Treasury Department and the U.S. 

Department of Health and !Iuman Services. 

This is a critical issue tor Oklahoma and for every one of the 34 states that chose not to establish 

a state health care exchange- a choice that was provided to us by Congress and affirmed by the 

United States Supreme Court. 

Because of the serious ramifications facing our states, I appreciate the attention that this 

subcommittee is giving to these concerns with this matter. 

First, I would like to be clear about my intentions today regarding health care policy and the law. 

My comments will not focus on the need for health care refonn or the wisdom of the polh;y 

choices embodied in the ACA. Our responsibility as attorneys general is to preserve the rule of 

law; is to give meaning and affect to that which you have passed in Congress while protecting 

the rights and interests of our citizens. 

When Congress passed the health care act, they provided states a choice. That choice was 

whether to establish a state health care exchange or to opt tor a federal exchange. The ACA 

included with that choice a set of consequences and benefits that states had to consider. As the 

Chairman indicated, our policymakers did in fact go through that process in a very deliberative 

fashion. Among the outcomes of a state choosing not to establish a state exchange is a 

consequence of no subsidies flowing into that state. The law also provided a benefit of no 

penalties in the employers mandate arena for large employers. 
1019 

Our Governor Mary Fallin and other state stakeholders thoughtfully and thoroughly reviewed the 

options provided them under the Affordable Care Act, and ultimately chose not to establish a 

state health care exchange. 

But after the decision was made, the IRS finalized a rule that would strip states of the main 

benefit of their choice- no large-employer penalty. Congress provided this choice to states, and 

now the IRS is attempting to take that away by rule. 

The IRS is acting as a super legislative body in this capacity by enacting regulations that 

Congress did not authorize. Their actions conflict with the ACA, and when infonned of this, the 

regulators ignored public warnings and concerns that pointed out the problem. In fact, many 

months before the rule went final in May 2012, the record was made as early as November 20 II 

with respect to these concerns. 

The IRS docs not have the authority to expand access to subsidies beyond what is clearly written 

in the law. As the Chairman indicated, that's billions of dollars that will be flowing unauthorized 

by Congress. The regulation appears geared more toward enacting the agency's own policies 

than faithfully following implementation of the law passed by Congress. 

That is why in September of last year, I tiled a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Oklahoma 

challenging the IRS rule and its lack of authority under the Affordable Care Act. Our unique 

position allowed us to lead the charge against rogue agencies misusing the law to advance their 

own agenda. 

As we have stated in our lawsuit, Oklahoma's position has been clear from the very beginningthat the large-employer penalty not only violates the law when implemented in states without a 

state health care exchange. but cripples businesses with burdensome and onerous requirements 

and penalties. 

For a medium-sized company, already struggling to meet the needs of its thousands of 

employees. the penalty equates to millions annually when only one of its employees qualifies for 

a subsidy under subpart A. 

Until now, the Obama Administration has argued in court that the mandate is uncomplicated and 

easy. but il~ recent sudden reversal and delay of the mandate, clearly demonstrates and 

acknowledges that the large-employer mandate is in fact a complex, job killing and harmful 

mandate on businesses, and again Oklahoma is considered a large business under the statute. 

Exactly where these burdens fall is a serious matter, and if the ACA exempts employers in states 

foregoing the establishment of their own exchange, that exemption should be recognized and 

enforced, and we appreciate the committee's focus on that. 

These issues arc of great importance to the Great State of Oklahoma because we value our state's 

economic stability and growth, and the rule of law. 

Our fight continues on behalf of Oklahoma citizens to confront the Administration when it seeks 

to overreach its authority and circumvent the law. We hope to obtain relief in this matter through 

the Courts, but we also welcome Congressional oversight being brought to bear on these 

agencies. 
1020 

!look forward to answering any questions you may have and I thank you for your time this 

morning, Mr. Chairman. 
1021 

Testimony before the Senate Environmental and Public Works Subcommittee 

on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety 

"Legal Implications of the Clean Power Plan" 

May 5, 2015 

E. Scott Pruitt 

Attorney General 

State of Oklahoma 
1022 

Cbairv/Oman Capito, Ranking Member Carper, Chairman lnhofe, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, 

Thank you for the invitation to discuss the legal ramifications ofthe EPA's proposed Clean 

Power Plan. 

This is an issue of major importance to states like Oklahoma. 

Quite simply, Madam Chairwoman, the EPA does not possess the authority under the Clean Air 

Act to do what it is seeking to accomplish in the so-called Clean Power Plan. 

The EPA, under this administration, treats States like a vessel of federal wilL The EPA believes 

the States exist to implement the policies the Administration sees tit, regardless of whether laws like the 

Clean Air Act permit such action. 

In their wisdom, Congress gave States a primary role in emissions regulation, noting in the 

statement of policy of the Clean Air Act that "air pollution control at its source is the primary 

responsibility of States and local governments." 

That statement respects the constitutional limits on federal regulation of air quality, and the 

reality that States arc best suited to develop and implement such policies. 

States are able to engage in a cost-benefit analysis to strike the necessary balance between 

protecting and preserving the environment, while still creating a regulatory framework that does not 

stifle job growth and economic activity. The States are partners with the federal government in 

regulating such matters. 

Therefore, the Clean Air Act hinges on ''cooperative federalism" by giving States the primary 

responsibility and role for regulation while providing a federal backstop if the States should fail to act. 
1023 

When the EPA respects the role of the States. the cooperative relationship works well. When the 

EPA exceeds the constraints placed upon the agency by Congress, the relationship is thrown out of 

balance and the rule of law and state sovereignty both suffer. 

The Clean Power Plan proposal throws the cooperative relationship between the States and the 

Federal government off balance. 

The EPA claims the proposal gives States flexibility to develop their own plans to meet the 

national goals of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. In reality, the Clean Power Plan is nothing more 

than an attempt by the EPA to expand federal bureaucrats' authority over States' energy power 

generation mixes. 

The plan requires each State to submit a plan to cut carbon-dioxide emissions by a nationwide 

average of30 percent by 2030. 

In Oklahoma, 40.5 percent of energy generation comes from coal-fired power plants while 38.1 

percent comes from natural gas. Oklahoma ranks fourth in the nation with 15 percent of power 

generation coming from wind. 

This begs the question, how does the EPA expect States like Oklahoma to meet the goals of the 

Clean Power Plan? There are only so many ways Oklahoma can achieve the 30 percent reduction 

demanded by the EPA. The plan, therefore. must be viewed as an attempt by the EPA to force States 

into shuttering coal-!ired power plants and eventually other sources of fossil-fuel-generated electricity. 

Additionally, the proposed rule, through its building block four, would require States to use 

demand-side energy efficiency measures that would reduce the amount of generation required. 

However, States are limited to emission standards that can actually be achieved by existing industrial 

sources through source-leveL "inside-the-fence-line" measures. 
1024 

The proposal's attempt to force States to regulate energy consumption and generation throughout 

their jurisdictions. in the guise of reducing emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants, violates 

Section lll(d)'s plain-text requirement that the performance standards established for existing sources 

by the States must be limited to measures that apply at existing power plants themselves. 

EPA's approach converts the obscure, little-used Section Ill (d) into a general enabling act, 

giving EPA power over the entire grid from generation to light switch. By going beyond source-level, 

"inside-the-fence-line" measures, EPA's proposal would expand lll(d), and specifically the tmderlying 

statutory term "best system of emission reduction," into "a whole new regime of regulation": one that 

regulates not only pollutant emission by sources, but a State's entire resource and energy sectors. 

To meet the objectives of the EPA's proposed rule, States will be forced to rework their energy 

generation market. To account for the loss of coal-tired generation, States will be forced into changing 

their energy mix in favor of rcnewables. States would also be forced to alter existing regulatory 

framework which would threaten energy atTordability and reliability for consumers, industry and energy 

producers. 

Finally, there is substantial concern that the EPA before the Clean Power Plan rule is even 

finalized- will issue a uniform federal implementation plan that "~ll be forced upon those States that 

don't acquiesce to the unlawful Clean Power Plan. 

Such a move by the EPA would be the proverbial "gun to the head" of the States, demanding the 

States to act as the EPA sees fit or face punitive financial sanctions. 

Madam Chairwoman, f can say with great confidence that if the EPA does in fact move forward 

with the "uniform FIP," the EPA will be challenged in court by Oklahoma and like-minded states. 

Madam Chairwoman, I am not one who believes the EPA has no role. The agency has played an 

important role historically in addressing water and air quality issues that traverse state lines. 
1025 

However, with this rule, the agency is now being used to pick winners and losers in the energy 

context, by elevating renewable power generation at the expense of fossil-fuel fired generation. 

No State should comply with the Clean Power Plan if it means surrendering decision-making 

authority to the EPA. a power that has not been granted to the agency. States should be left to make 

decisions on the fuel diversity that best meets their power generation needs. 

States like Oklahoma care about these issues because we breathe the air, drink the water, and 

want to preserve the land for future generations. 

And we have developed a robust regulatory regime that has successfully struck a balance 

between maintaining and preserving air and water quality, while still considering the economic impact 

of such regulations. 

Madam Chairwoman, states like Oklahoma are simply opposed to the Clean Power Plan because 

it is outside the authority granted to the EPA by the law. We only ask that State authority under the 

Clean Air Act be respected and preserved and that decisions on power generation and how to achieve 

emissions reductions be made at the local level rather than at the federal level. 

I again appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues with you. 

Sincerely, 

E. SCOTT PRUITT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA 
1026 

•

;"-'''"J, 

,'::¥; ~ 

" > \ J; . . 

•• }[) ,> 

E. SCOH PRUITT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA 

Joint Hearing of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and House Committee 

on Transportotion and lnfraslmcture 

"Impacts of the Proposed Waters of the United States Rule on State and Local Government" 

Chairmen lnhofe and Shuster, Ranking Members Boxer and DeFazio, Members ofthe Senate 

Committee on Environment and Public Works and House Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency's 

proposed rule to redefine the "Waters of the United States" and the significant negative impact 

such a rule would inflict on states and the landowners within their borders. 

Respect and protection of private property rights sets the United States apart from other nations 

and has fueled the greatest expansion of economic freedom the world has ever known. Indeed, 

private property rights are among the foundational rights of any functional democracy, not just 

ours. 

President Obama's Environmentall'rotection Agency currently stands poised to strike a blow to 

private property rights, through a proposed rule that radically expands EPA jurisdiction by 

placing virtually all land and water under the heavy regulatory hand of the federal government. 

The Proposed Rule aims to redefine what constitutes ''navigable waters" or ·•waters of the United 

States"- a term that long been understood to include only significant bodies of water capable of 

serving as conduits for interstate commerce. The proposed rule redefines those terms to now 

include virtually every body of water in the nation, right down to the smallest of streams, farm 

ponds and ditches. This is a naked power grab by the EPA. 

Messrs. Chairmen, the EPA should undoubtedly have a role in solving interstate water quality 

issues. That role should not. however, be so expansive so as to render virtually every property 

owner in the nation subject to often unpredictable, unsound, and Byzantine federal regulatory 

regimes. When the states are cut out of the loop in favor of federal regulators, landowners are left 

lobbying distant federal bureaucrats when the system wrongs them -and wrong them it will. 

Simply put, the proposed rule is a classic case of overreach, and flatly contrary to the will of 

Congress, who, with the passing of the Clean Water Act, decided that it was the states who 

should plan the development and use of local land and water resources. 

The EPA has been generally dismissive of these concerns brought by states, local governments 

and individual citizens, with their primary tactic being an ineffective public relations campaign 
1027 

to sway opinions in rural America. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has been documented as 

dismissing many concerns wholesale- calling them "ludicrous" and ''silly"- while also 

asserting that the proposed rule is all about ''protecting waters" and providing clarification. 

To Administrator McCarthy, who appeared before you today, I say: pardon my skepticism, but 

these reassurances are from the same administration that preyed on the "ignorance" (their words, 

not mine) of the American voters to sell them on a federal takeover ofhealthcare, with lies like 

"if you like your insurance, you wn keep your insurance." So, just as President Reagan told us, 

'Trust, but verify,'' we would like to trust you, but something does not add up. This rule smells 

like far more than mere clarification; indeed, it reeks of federal expansion, overreach, and 

interference with local land use decisions. 

Notably, there are several United States Supreme Court decisions illustrating that the intended 

regulatory jurisdiction of the EPA has been limited primarily to the "navigable waters'' of the 

United States, with all other waters rightly left for the states to regulate. 

At the time the Clean Water Act (CWA) was passed, the Supreme Court had previously defined 

the "navigable waters of the United States" as interstate waters that are navigable in fact or 

readily susceptible of being rendered so. [The Daniel Ball, lO Wall. 557, 563 (1871)]. More 

recently, the Court decided Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps<~[ 

Engineers [531 U.S. 159 (2001 )], known as SWANCC, and Rapanos v. United States [574 U.S. 

715 (2006)]. These two cases more clearly specify the limits of federal jurisdiction under the 

CWA, placing two significant limitations on federal jurisdiction. First, the Court has made clear 

that any examination of federal jurisdiction must begin with the understanding that Congress 

intended the States to retain primacy over the development and use of local land and water 

resources. Second, the Court made clear that federal jurisdiction is only proper over water that 

has a continuous surface connection to a "core" water. 

In SWANCC, the Court ruled that the Army Corps of Engineers exceeded its authority by 

attempting to regulate ·'non-navigable, isolated. intrastate waters," such as seasonal ponds. The 

Court explained that in enacting the CWA, Congress intended to preserve the States' historical 

primacy over the management and regulation of intrastate water and land management. 

In Rapanos, the Court described two different tests for when a secondary water can be 

considered a "water of the United States.'' A four-Justice plurality thought the question turned on 

whether the water has a continuous surface connection to a core water. while Justice Kennedy's 

concurring opinion examined whether a water has a "significant nexus" to a core water. • 

With this Proposed Rule, the EPA has attempted to transform Justice Kennedy's concurring 

opinion in Rapanos into a regulatory blank check for themselves. But the Proposed Rule's ad 

hoc approach is certainly contrary to the test adopted by the Rapanos plurality and is broader 

than even Justice Kennedy would permit. 

In addition. and critically, the proposed rule's inclusion of this vague, catch-all category defeats 

the EPA's claimed purpose of the rule of bringing "transparency, predictability and consistency" 

to the scope of CW A jurisdiction and land-use decisions. Instead, the EPA has simply redefined 

the meaning of·'navigable waters" in an extraordinarily broad way, so that any land owner may 
1028 

be subject to onerous permitting requirements or severe civil penalties if violated, even if 

unknowingly. 

Oklahoma has seen firsthand how the federal government, specifically the EPA, abuses its 

regulatory power in states that have interests in energy, farming and ranching. The states are not, 

and should not be used as, a vessel to carry out the misguided visions of bureaucrats in 

Washington, who often seem to have little regard for how their actions negatively impact the 

economy and private property rights. 

During the comment period for this rule, Oklahoma filed its objections to the rule. Additionally, 

as the chieflaw officer of the state of Oklahoma, I can say with confidence that if the EPA 

continues forward with this rule as proposed, the rule will be challenged in court. 

If this rule is issued as proposed, we will all live in a regulatory state where farmers must go 

before the EPA to seek permission to build a farm pond to keep their livestock alive, where home 

builders must seek EPA approval before beginning construction on a housing development that 

contains a dry creek bed, and where energy producers are left waiting for months or even years 

to get permits from the EPA, costing the producers tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars 

that inevitably will be passed on to consumers. 

Messrs. Chairmen, the EPA's proposed rule is unlawful and must be withdrawn. We urge the 

EPA to meet with state-level officials who can help the agency understand the careful measures 

that states already have in place to protect and develop the lands and waters within their borders. 

We urge the EPA to listen to Congress regarding the intent of the law to limit the regulation of 

non-navigable waters. But most of all, we urge the EPA to take note of the harm that its rule will 

do to the property rights of the average American and their ability to make land use decisions. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to your committees. 
1029 

The Next Supreme Court Justice 

By Scott Pruitt 

When Jus rice :\ntonin Scalia passed away this February, talk almost immediately turned to who 

would replace him. But it's hard w fathom how such a man could be "replaced." Justice Scalia was 

wtthout a doubt the most influential jurist in our generation. Even those who vehemently disagreed 

with him acknowledge his profound impact. His scholarship and judicial opinions, through brilliance 

and v.~t, transformed how we think about the law and the Constitution. lie inspired a generation of 

law students and lawyers. He provided the foundation for the works of judges and legislators, as well 

as attorneys general like mysdf i\nd he challenged those opposed to his ideas to sharpen their 

arguments to meet the force of his logic. 

l'.lany of those who knew J usticc Scalia will attest that his brilliance was matched only by his warmth, 

cheer, and grace. T personally was privileged to experience this truth. I was visiting Wiashington, D.C. 

last year, about to head back to Oklahoma, when my good friend Leonard Leo, Executive Vice 

President for the Federalist Society, invited me to stay some extra time to have dinner with a few 

friends. One of them was Justice Scalia. I cannot express the joy I expt>rienced having the 

opportunity to pray over a meal with this man, whom I greatly admired, and to break bread wirh him 

as we shared stories and our mutuollove for this country and its Constinnion. lie will be deeply 

missed. 

:\s I\·c had rime ro reflect on his legacy, and my hopes for the person who ,vjlf take his scat on the 

Supreme Court, I wanted to share with you some of the principles T believe Justice Scalia stoocl for, 

and that I pray rhe next Justice mll share. First, as a scholar and a judge, Justice Scalia championccl 

the idea that the law, from statutes to the Constinotion, must be applied according to its text, and 

only its text. Judges should not apply the law based on what is good policy or what they guess 

Congress may ha\'e wanted (but did not express) in passing a law, This idea may be simple and 

obvious to us now, but before Justice Scalia, it was rare for courts to faithfully apply the law as 

written and only as written. Through the force of :lrgument and relentless dedication, Justice Scalia 

was able to transform the legal c'tlturc into paying attention first and foremost to the text of the bw. 

As his colleague libcraljusticc Elena Kagan declared, thanks to Scalia, "we're all Tcxtualists now." 

The next Justice must have the humility and rigor to be faithful to the text of the law. 

Determining the meaning of that text led Justice Scalia to the second great cause oflegal career, 

Originalism. In Justice Scalia's ,·iew, the words of the law should be understood just as they were 

understood by the people when the law was enacted-also known as the "original public meaning." 

For example, if you strike a bargain u,'ith someone, and later there is a dispute about that bargain, 

how do you interpret the \Vords of yonr cont·ract? Do you look to what the words of the contract 

meant at the time you agreed to them? Or do you look to what those words mean to someone else 

ten or fifty years after the fact) There arc some who believe that the meaning of words in the law 

change over time, untcthered to history or any objective inguiry. What is legal one day could be 

illegal the next without any changes to the words of the law. Justice Scalia rejected that notion ancl 
1030 

held fast to the idea that the meaning of the words of the law is fixed, and it is the meaning ascribed 

to the words by the people at the time they were enacted, That is the bw the people or their 

representatives agreed to and \'Otcd on, and no other, If later the people see fit to change the law, 

tinding the text outdated or ill-advised, it is for them to change it, not for undected judges, The next 

Justice must be an Origina!ist 

'lbese two principles---Textunlism and Originalism-ar<' ultimately rooted in a third characteristic of 

Justice Scalia's jurispmdence: An unwavering respect for the institution of Democracy, Laws, 

including the Constitution, are only legitimate to the extent that they emanate from the people, The 

Constitution is not an autonomously evolving document that sprouts forth new rights and 

obligations that the people never intended nor voted to include, 1\ccordingly, like Justice Scalia, 

JUdges should reject the invitation to discover new "rights" in the Constitution. They should respect 

the constitutional prerogatives of the people to pass laws through their democratically-elected 

legislatures, limited only by the restraints actually put in the Constitution by vote of the people, The 

next Justice should stay strong against the temptation to exalt his or her own \\~sdom over the 

wisdom of the people, Doing any less fails to recognize that we live ultimately in a democracy, nor in 

a wcicty in which judges arc our rulers, 

This caution agaimr creative interpretation of the Constitution must be balanced "'~th a fourth 

characteristic of Justice Scalia's life work: Vigorous and tenacious enforcement of the rights and 

provisions actually written in the Constitution. \\'hen a right was firmly rooted in the Constitution's 

text and history, there was no more ardent ad\' ocate for that right fhan Justice Scalia. He was often 

more passionate in defense of such rights than even his liberal colleagues, From the right of free 

speech to the rights of criminal defendants-like the right to freedom from unwarranted searches or 

the right to confront your accuser-Justice Scalia was Lmmatchcd in his deftmse of constitutional 

liberties, Beyond enumerated individuallibcrtics,Jusrice Scalia also recO!,'llized that the 

Constitution's primary protection of liberty is its structure--of checks and balances between 

branches, of the separation of powers bt•twecn the federal government and the states, He 

consistently beld the government to account' in ensuring that it was acting pursuant to proper 

authority and procedure, In short, Justice Scalia rejected the judicial activism of inventing law while 

embracing judicial engagement by ensuring that the limits on government are strictly enforced, The 

ne~t Supreme Court Justice must be similarly engaged, 

!laving a Justice in the mold ofJustice Scalia on the Supreme Court may be more important now 

than it has been in half a century, If you are a legal conservative-a Tcxmalist, an Originalist, a 

Constitutionalist-there is some to gain, but an enormous amount ro lose, in the appointment of 

next Associate Justice, Not since the New Deal has the country had a conservative majority on the 

Supreme CourL During the last sixty years, the Court has either been deciclecUy liberal or has been 

split between liberals and conservatives, This means that over the last 25 years, the Court's most 

controversial and closely-divided decisions sometimes led to a liberal outcome, sometimes to a 

conservative one, This was the case at the time of)usticc Scalia's death-four unwaveringly liberal 

Justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan), three solidly conservative Justices (Scalia, 
1031 

Thomas, and :\lito), a fourth who votes conset'Yativc much of the time (ChiefJusncc Roberts), and 

one s"'ing-votc Qnsticc Kennedy). RepladngJustice Scalia with a liberal would fundamentally alter 

that balance, providing the liberal wing of the Court with a solid five-justice majority that will ensure 

all controversial decisions will have only one possible outcome. By contrast, if Justice Scalia is 

replaced by a conservative like himself, the status quo rcnutins a closely-divided Court where 

ideologically-charged cases could come out either way. 

Make no mistake: The liberal Justices of th<: Coun vote as a solid block, rarely departing from one 

another. Wher<:as a comervat.ive Justice may occasionally fot reasons of judicial philosophy depart 

from what some might consider the "conservative" outcome-as Justice Scalia often did-one is 

hard-pressed to find many decisions where a liberal Justice's vote is ever in question. For example, in 

the Supreme Courr's 2014-2015 term, all four liberal Jus rices agreed with each other over 9()"1(, of the 

time-more agreement than any single conservative Justice had with another conservative Justice. 

By contrast, Chief justice Roberts agreed \t~th Justice Thomas in only 70% of cases. If the liberal 

wing of rhe Coun has a five-Justice majority, we woulJ be wise ro expect that no controversial 

decision of the Supreme Court \\~11 ever cut in conservatives' favor. 

From a broad perspective, this is what is at stake "~th the appointment of the next Supreme Court 

Justice. But assigning labels like "liberal" and "conservative' can sometimes be unhelpful when 

speaking of an institu6on as complex as the U.S. Supreme Court and cases as nuanced as those 

before the Court. So I want to provide a survey of the issues that the Court might decide in the 

upcoming years once a ninth Jus rice is appointed. 

It might be appropriate to begin with one of our core liberties, without which our democracy cannot 

function: The freedom of speech. At issue these days is the freedom to spend--or not spendmoney on political speech. For example, before Justice Scalia passed away, the Supreme Court voted 

to grant review of a case called l'liedrith.r tJ, Calijomia Trarhm ,'lJJociatioll, i.n which public-sector 

employees wantcJ the right to be fret• from paying compulsory union dues. This case asked an 

important question about free speech: Can the government force you to contribute money to a 

political cause you oppose? But Justice Scalia died befort: the case was decided. 'I he Court split 

evenly ~-4, leaving the issue to ultimately be resolved by a future Supreme Court--and the deciding 

vote to be cast by the future ninth Justice. 

On the other side of the political speech coin is the continued vitality of the Supreme Court's 

Cititens {}nited decision. Let me c1~rify a common misconception: Citi'{<ns United did ''"'hold that 

corporations may give unlimited amounts to political candidates. In fact, the laws limiting the 

amount of campaign contributions to a few thousand dollars arc still valid and in place. Rather, in 

Citi~ws U11iled, the Supreme Court held that the government may not limit the amount of money 

anyone-including individuals, unions, and corporations-spends on their own, independent 

political advocacy and speech. But this decision was decided 5 to .. 1, with Justice Scalia in the 

majority. If his vote is replaced with someone who disaf,>'tecd "'ith Citizms L'11ited, it \"cty well might 

be overturned. 
1032 

l11e First Amendment also protects our religious liberty-another core right at stake in the coming 

years. For example, before Justice Scaha pa>sed away, the S\tpreme Court granted review in Ttinity 

L-Jt!btraiJ Chnrrh q[Co!rtmbia v. Palll~y, which is to decide whether certain state laws called "Blaine 

Amendments" arc constitutional. Blaine Amendments, if you arc not familiar with them, are 

provisions added to state constitutions during a time of anti-Catholic fervor that prevent any state 

funds from being used to benefit a church or a religion for a1ty reason. This means that if a state 

government is rwming a program that provides resources to private institutions, it must discriminate 

against those institutions that happen to be religious, even if the program that is being funded is not 

at all religious. In this case, the Srnte of iVlissouri ran a program providing scrap tires for flooring in 

playgrounds to make them more safe for children. But because of th" !:\Iaine Amendment, the State 

refused to provide tires for a Church's playground. \X'ith other Attorneys General, I filed a brief 

supporting the effort ro get these cliscriminawry Blaine .Amendments struck down. The new justice 

is likely ro cast the deciding vote on whether to remove this legacy of bigotry and hostility to religion 

from our laws. 

The freedom of religious conscience may also hang in the balance. We have seen this in the f'lob~y 

Lob~)' case, where the Supreme Court protected the right of religious employers not to fund 

abortions. So too in the Uttlt JiJtm o.ftbr l'oorcase, where the Supreme Court has, for now, narrowly 

avoided the question of whether Catholic nun:; can be rctjuired to have their health insurance plan 

cover contraception. On the horizon arc other cases where our freedom of conscience is at issue. 

One case recently appealed to the Supreme Court involves pharmacists objecting to a \X'ashington 

law that requires them to sell abortion drugs even when supporting abortion violates their beliefs. 

Similarly, whether civil rights laws can be used to force, for example, a Christian photographer w 

use her artform to celebrate a same-sex wedding may also reach the Court soon. All of the"' First 

Amendment issues, from freedom of speech to freedom of religion, need a new Supreme Court 

Justice that: is dedicMed to ensuring that those freedoms arc vigorously protected. 

Moving from the from the First Amendment to the Second, the next Justice \\~!!likely cast the 

decicling vote on whether to continue to recognize an indh·idual right to keep and bear a"n', or 

whether to make that right w narrow that it is, for practical purposes, read out of existence. For 

example, the Ninth Circuit Coutt of ;\ppeals in California just this month held that the Second 

Amendment does not forbid lows that effectively prohtbit most people from carrying a firearm in 

public. Without a Justice willing ro stand up for an effccti,•e right to bear arms, the Second 

.-\mendment might very well be a dead letter. 

Nmnerous more issues hang in the balance at the Supreme Court. My office defended the most 

recent case challenging the death penalty and forms of execution, but v.~th an additional liberal 

Justice on the Court, the death penalty might soon meet its own swift demise. The list can go on: 

affirmative action, the regulation of the abortion industry, and voting laws are all potential subjects 

of a deciding \'Ole from the person filling Justice Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court. 
1033 

Bur I want to focus on one final set of constitutional questions that have rt.-ached their tipping point 

in recent years and could be in the hands of the future ninth Justice. Those questions have to do 

with the structure of our Constitution. Contrary to what might be popular belief, the primary 

guarantee of our liberty in the Constitution is not the Bill of Rights, but that the Constitution has set 

up a structure that prevents accumulation of power and oppression of the people. It docs so in part 

by separating power between organs of government. Power is divided between the states and the 

federal government. \Vi thin the federal government, it is fmrher divided between the Executive, 

Legislative, and Judicial branches. The founders expected that those in the different organs of 

government would be jealous for their own power, 7.ealously defending it from other parts of 

government that would attempt to seiu it. f n tlus manner, the ;tructurc of the Constitution 

provtdes the greatest and broadest guarantee of liberty-by limiting power at the root. 

But these structural prmcctions are under threat. Since at least the New Deal, the President has been 

accumulating more and more power, and the current administration has taken this quest for 

unilateral authority to new levels. For example, rhe President has engaged in numerous attempts to 

effectively rewrite existing laws-the job of Congress-when Congress refuses to pass laws rhat he 

desires. Last year the President's Em·ironmental Protection Agency instituted a new "Clean Power 

Plan," which is his attempt to fight climate change absent any authority gramed by Congress, by 

effectively attempting to pur the coal industry out of business. The State of Oklahoma, along with 

28 other States, sued to have this rule blocked. In his last act on the bench, .Justice Scalia voted to 

put this Clean Power Plan temporarily on hold while it is being litigated, providing a good indication 

that five of the Justices thought it to be unlawfuL But with Justice Scalia gone, it v.~lllikcly he his 

replacement that finally decides this important issue of executive power and energy policy. 

The President's ancmpts to rcwdte laws doesn't end there. 'l11e EPA and the Army Corps of 

Engin<'ers recently rewrote rhe definition of the Ckan \Vater Act's term "\'Vaters of the United 

States" (\XiOTUS) to include almost every puddle and pond in the country, meaning that the 

Executive will seize authority to regulate that water away from the states. Again, Oklahoma and 26 

other Stares have challenged this power grab. liiost recently, the President and his agencies have 

decided to unilaterally create mandatory accommodations for tmnsgender people by r.:writing laws 

like Title LX, which prohibits discrimination based on "sex.'' fn the President's world, the word 

"sex" in the law no longe.r means biological sex, hut rather means "gender identity," which the 

adminisrration defines as a person's ''internal sense of gender.";\ new Justice will likely cast the 

deciding vote on whctlwr courts should check this type of executive o\'erreach. 

In addition to virtually inventing new laws to enforce, the second way in which the President has 

expanded his power is by deciding not to enforce laws he simply docs not like. 'l11is effectively gives 

him the power to make law by repealing it. He has done so with the immigration laws by designating 

entire chsses of people as ha,'ing "legal "atus" and therefore cannot he deported, c>·en though the 

bw very clearly states that these people are unlawfully present. Similarly, the i\dmitustration has 

effectively legalized marijuana in certain states by refusing to enforce federal laws prohibiting it in 

states that promote its recreational use. The extent to which the President must follow his 
1034 

Æ 

constitutional mandate to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" is a hotly contested issue 

on which the next Supreme Court justice might provide the pivotal vote. 

One final note on what is at stake with the next Supreme CourrJustice.Tile next Justice wiU not 

only decide the outcome in pending cases, he or she wiU influence the (ypc of cases that make it to 

the Court in the first place. Businesses are less likely to challenge exorbitant or unfair rulings against 

them knowing they have a majority of Justices hostile to their interests. Conservatives will he less 

likely to put their time and resources in defending the Constitutio11 if they know the Court won't 

enforce it. l'vfcanwhilc, liberal !,>Toups will be emboldened to bring cases that attempt to rollback the 

progress made in the last decade on First Amendment and Second Amendment rights, among 

others. They will also attempt to bring case~ attempting to establish new constitutional requirements, 

such as a property right to government welfare payments, a right to a free attorney in civil (not just 

criminal) cases, a right to greater funds for public schools, a prohibition on racial disparities in 

criminal justice outcomes, an exception to the First ;\mcndment for so-called "hate speech," or a 

prohibition on all sex-segregated rcstrooms. 

I do not mean to be alarmist, but it can hardly be doubted that the appointment of the next 

Supreme Court Justice could be the most legally-signific;un event for our counrry in a generation. If 

the next Justice is in the mold of Justices Ginsburg or Sotomayor, the rulings of the Court \\ill shift 

dramatically to the left. If, on the other hand, the next .Justice takes his principles and philosophy 

from Justice Scalia, the ideologically-balanced Court that we have grown accustomed to in the last 

<]Uarter-ccntury is likdy to remain. As somebody whose job it is to defend the rights of my State 

before the courts, this turning point is obviously very important to me. But as [ hope I have 

explained, rhe next Supreme Court .Justice will also make decisions that touch on the rights of every 

American, from the most mundane portions of their daily life to their most important decisions. The 

next Justice's decishrc vote may come to define the nature of our government and our detnocracy 

for many years to come. 'll1at is what is at stake.