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

20–726 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–303 

OVERSIGHT OF EPA UNFUNDED MANDATES ON 

STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, WASTE 

MANAGEMENT, AND REGULATORY OVERSIGHT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 7, 2016 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

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 

RYAN JACKSON, Majority Staff Director 

BETTINA POIRIER, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, WASTE MANAGEMENT, 

AND REGULATORY OVERSIGHT

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JUNE 7, 2016 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Rounds, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota .................... 1 

Markey, Hon. Edward J., U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts .......... 3 

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 4 

WITNESSES 

Hawkins, George, CEO and General Manager, District of Columbia Water 

and Sewer Authority ............................................................................................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Glicksman, Robert, Professor of Environmental Law, The George Washington 

University ............................................................................................................. 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

Response to an additional question from Senator Markey ........................... 34 

Norris, Hon. Mark, Majority Leader, Tennessee Senate, on behalf of the 

Council of State Governments ............................................................................ 37 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 59 

Senator Rounds ......................................................................................... 63 

Leinbach, Hon. Christian, Commission Chair, Berks County, Pennsylvania, 

on behalf of the National Association of Counties ............................................. 66 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 68 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 112 

Senator Rounds ......................................................................................... 116 

Berrey, Hon. John, Chairman, Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma ................................ 118 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 121 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF EPA UNFUNDED MANDATES 

ON STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS 

TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, WASTE MANAGEMENT, 

AND REGULATORY OVERSIGHT, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:36 p.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Rounds (chairman of 

the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Rounds, Markey, Boozman, and Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROUNDS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator ROUNDS. Good afternoon, everyone. While we are waiting on Mr. Markey to arrive, I think we will begin with opening 

statements just to preserve your time as well. 

I would like to, first of all, let you know that the Environment 

and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight is meeting today to conduct a 

hearing on Oversight of EPA Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, 

and Tribal Governments. Today we will examine the EPA’s compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and the impact of 

unfunded mandates imposed by the EPA on State, local, and tribal 

governments. 

I am pleased our witnesses include State, local, and tribal representatives with extensive experience in balancing their demands 

required of States, localities, and tribes in complying with EPA regulations while managing limited resources and budgets. 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, or UMRA, was enacted in 

1995 and sought to avoid imposing unfunded Federal mandates on 

State, local, and tribal governments and to make certain Federal 

agencies take costs into account when imposing new regulations. 

When a Federal agency seeks to impose regulations on a State, local, or tribal government that will result in $100 million or more 

a year in expenditures, UMRA requires Federal agencies to evaluate a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and choose the 

most cost effective alternative that will meet the regulatory goals 

of the agency without imposing unreasonable compliance costs on 

smaller governments. However, the EPA’s overly burdensome and 

aggressive regulatory agenda has resulted in billions of dollars in 
2 

regulatory costs on State, local, and tribal governments and often 

leads to citizens’ footing the bill. 

Under the current Administration, the regulatory burden imposed by the EPA on the American people has steadily increased. 

According to the American Action Forum, from 2009 to 2016, the 

EPA has finalized 163 overall regulations at a regulatory cost of 

$312.2 billion. 

The number of unfunded mandates being imposed by the EPA 

has also increased. From 2005 to 2008, EPA finalized seven regulations that triggered UMRA. However, from 2009 to 2014, the EPA 

issued 19 rules that contained unfunded mandates, a total of more 

than three annually. Further, in just the past 2 years, the EPA has 

moved forward with finalizing multiple regulations that will impose unprecedented costs on State, local, and tribal governments. 

Despite the Administration’s insistence that most of these rules 

are not unfunded mandates, in reality, rules such as Waters of the 

U.S., the ozone NAAQS rule, and the Clean Power Plan will undeniably result in hundreds of millions of dollars of compliance costs 

imposed on small governments faced with limited resources. For 

these rules, State, local, and tribal governments were not properly 

consulted throughout the rulemaking process as required by 

UMRA. The EPA finalized these regulations without considering 

the impact these regulations will have, and the EPA did not consider alternatives that would be more cost effective and easier to 

comply with before imposing these large, one-size-fits-all regulations that will have little environmental benefit. 

As a result, State, local, and tribal governments will be forced to 

use limited resources to comply with burdensome Federal regulations when they could put them to better use providing basic services and benefits to their citizens. Further, some small governments have no other choice but to raise taxes on American families 

in an attempt to manage the cost of complying with these Federal 

regulations. 

UMRA was created to make certain Federal agencies took the 

time to consider how Federal regulations would impact those required to comply with them. Unfortunately, the EPA has issued 

regulations in a way counter to the core intent of UMRA and continues to impose burdensome, costly regulations without undertaking proper consultation process or analyzing more cost effective 

alternatives. 

Federal agencies cannot continue to impose billions of dollars in 

regulatory costs on State, local, and tribal governments. We must 

recognize the unique characteristics of these governments that are 

tasked with managing multiple Federal, State, local and responsibilities with limited resources, while also trying to provide for 

American families. State, local, and tribal governments should be 

equal partners with the EPA in the regulatory process rather than 

victims of an adversarial regulatory process. 

I would like to thank our witnesses for being with us here today, 

and I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Now I would like to recognize my friend, Senator Markey, for a 

5-minute opening statement. 
3 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, and I 

thank you very much for scheduling today’s hearing. 

Imagine rivers catching fire, cities choking on smog, and toxic 

chemicals seeping into the classrooms of school children. Imagine 

an odorless, tasteless, and colorless toxic gas being sprayed across 

your entire community. These aren’t the plots of a horror movie, 

but the stories of the Cuyahoga River, Los Angeles, Love Canal, 

and the former prolific use of the insecticide DDT, described by Rachel Carson in her book, Silent Spring. 

These catastrophes started an environmental revolution in our 

country. President Nixon created an Environmental Protection 

Agency in 1970, saying that we must preserve ‘‘the earth as a place 

both habitable by and hospitable to man.’’ And in an unbelievable 

decade of environmental activism between 1970 and 1980, Congress passed the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, 

the Toxic Substances Control Act, and the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act, and significantly strengthened the Clean Air Act 

and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. 

These laws have saved countless lives and billions of dollars in 

health costs and created an expectation that the air we breathe, 

the water we drink, and the land we use are safe. 

Much has changed since those bedrock environmental laws were 

first enacted. Eight-track tapes, the Ford Pinto, and pet rocks were, 

thankfully, left in the 1970s. But what has also changed is that 

EPA has been so effective that people now take clean air, clean 

water, and land that is also clean—they take those laws for granted. 

Contrary to the doom and the gloom prognostications of polluters, we have cleaned up the environment and grown the economy at the same time. Since the strengthening of the Clean Air Act 

in 1970, there has been a 70 percent reduction in smog, a 70 percent reduction in soot, and a 70 percent reduction in other pollutants. Meanwhile, American gross domestic product has grown by 

more than 200 percent. 

From Flint, Michigan, to the Tar Creek Superfund site on the 

lands of Chairman Berrey’s Quapaw Tribe, we have a responsibility 

to ensure that all people have access to clean air and safe water 

and land. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was enacted in 

1995 as a way to better understand the economic impact of Federal 

mandates on State, local, and tribal governments and ensures that 

they are consulted, establishes a procedural mechanism for Congress to block consideration of legislation containing unfunded 

mandates, and requires detailed cost-benefit analysis. 

Since 1995, Executive Orders 12866 and 13123 have also established cost-benefit analysis requirements for agency regulations. 

Similarly, the Administrative Procedures Act requires agencies to 

conduct cost-benefit analysis when issuing rules. 

The EPA is actually the most aggressive agency of the entire 

Federal Government in implementing Executive Order 13123, having voluntarily applied its requirements to more of its rules than 

required, which has resulted in a 10-fold increase in EPA rules requiring consultation with State and local governments. Yet some in 
4 

Congress want to add even more requirements, analysis, and roadblocks to the already lengthy and extensive regulatory process. 

Everyone on this committee agrees that the EPA should have to 

do cost-benefit analysis and consult with stakeholders. Everyone 

should also agree that adding so many layers to the rulemaking 

process that it becomes paralyzed will result in the erosion of the 

important public health protections Congress intended these laws 

to provide, because undermining our public health gains could truly 

be the beginning of a new horror story. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for having this hearing, and I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

Our witnesses joining us for today’s hearing are Mr. George 

Hawkins, CEO and General Manager, District of Columbia Water 

and Sewer Authority; Mr. Robert Glicksman, Professor of Environmental Law, the George Washington University; Hon. Senator 

Mark Norris, who is the majority leader of the Tennessee General 

Assembly, on behalf of the Council of State Governments; Hon. 

Christian Leinbach, Commissioner Chair, Berks County, Pennsylvania, on behalf of the National Association of Counties. 

And I would like to call upon Chairman Inhofe, as the senior 

member from Oklahoma, to introduce our final guest today. 

Senator INHOFE. First of all, let me say that it is really nice to 

have John Berrey here. John Berrey is the Chairman of the 

Quapaw Tribe in my State of Oklahoma. We have been good 

friends for many years, as have Senator Boozman and John Berrey. 

But, you know, I suffered through being mayor of the city of 

Tulsa through over-regulations and unfunded mandates, and I remember, as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, in your opening statement, that we had to start passing tax increases because these 

mandates were in fact mandates, and they were unfunded. And I 

remember the first act I had to do was to pass a 1 cent tax increase 

just to take care of unfunded mandates. 

So it is a problem that has been there for a long time. Yes, right 

now I have the Congressional Record in front of me from 1995, but 

our effort goes all the way back to 1979. 

But back to John Berrey, a great guy, a good friend, and who is 

going to give us a perspective that I don’t believe we have had this 

before, as to the tribal effects that come from unfunded mandates. 

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, Subcommittee Chairman Rounds, for convening today’s oversight 

hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for being here to testify—in particular, our 

State, local, and tribal representatives. 

Today’s topic is especially important for me because the time I spent as Mayor 

of Tulsa showed me how difficult it is for cities to balance compliance with unfunded 

Federal mandates while also responding to various local concerns and budget constraints. At that time, unfunded Federal mandates on Tulsa, primarily those from 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), forced me to pursue a 1 cent sales 

tax for capital improvements. I was also on the Board of Directors for the Conference of Mayors, along with Senator Feinstein when she was a mayor, advocating 

unfunded Federal mandates reform, so this is a bipartisan concern that has been 

ongoing. 
5 

Indeed, I was an original cosponsor of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA), enacted in 1995, because I thought it would serve as a useful tool to safeguard other levels of government from unjustified mandates by the Federal Government. 

Unfortunately, as this committee’s oversight has exposed, EPA’s regulatory process has a pattern where the Agency evades the requirements in laws that are meant 

to serve as a check on EPA’s regulatory overreach. 

EPA has used UMRA’s definitions and exemptions to their advantage to push the 

Administration’s priorities through the rulemaking process while minimizing the far 

reaching effects of its rules. For instance, EPA claimed its Waters of the U.S. 

(WOTUS) rule and so-called Clean Power Plan do not trigger UMRA because the 

rules are not expensive enough. We will hear from our witnesses today about how 

these rules, and many more, will impose significant costs on State, local, and tribal 

governments, despite EPA’s assessment. It is astounding that many of EPA’s costliest and most controversial rules have escaped UMRA’s coverage. 

While often avoiding UMRA’s requirements on major rules, Obama’s EPA has still 

been promulgating more rules that trigger UMRA than the previous Administration. 

Government-wide, the Office of Management and Budget has reported that rules on 

State, local, and tribal governments triggering UMRA have overwhelming been 

issued by the EPA. 

Even in instances where EPA has reviewed a rule triggering UMRA, the Agency 

falls far short of the law’s consultation requirements. Consultation with State, local, 

and tribal representatives is a requirement set forth in UMRA as these governments all play a critical role in regulatory compliance. Yet witnesses today and 

those at many other hearings have explained EPA’s approach to consultation is a 

mere check-the-box exercise. 

Better consultation is needed to align EPA’s rulemaking process with the processes of other governments. For instance, many EPA rules, such as the Clean Power 

Plan, require State legislatures to pass legislation to give their State agencies the 

authority and resources to implement the mandates. Further, State, local, and tribal 

governments must all be coordinated in planning the implementation of these rules 

and relay to EPA various technical challenges they will face in implementing the 

rule. This consultation should happen before rules are even proposed to allow for 

sufficient time to plan and for rules to be altered or scrapped based on co-regulators’ 

feedback. 

This is why it is critical we hear from our State and local partners and conduct 

oversight over EPA’s implementation of UMRA. Above all, we need to ensure that 

EPA action upholds the cooperative federalism framework where various levels of 

government work together to craft fair and efficient rules in a cost effective manner. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today who will share their on-theground perspective of EPA’s compliance with UMRA and implementation of EPA 

unfunded mandates. 

I ask that my full statement be entered into the record. Thank you. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

Chairman Berrey, welcome. 

Now we will turn to our first witness, Mr. George Hawkins, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. Hawkins, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE HAWKINS, CEO AND GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY 

Mr. HAWKINS. Good afternoon, Chairman Rounds, Ranking Member Markey, distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight. My name is 

George Hawkins. I am the Chief Executive and General Manager 

of the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, more commonly known as DC Water. 

DC Water is one of the few ‘‘one water’’ utilities in the country, 

providing drinking water, waste water, and storm water services 

from one enterprise to millions of retail and wholesale customers 

in the Washington, DC, region. DC Water is regulated by EPA Re-
6 

gion 3 for Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act compliance. From an environmental health and public health perspective, 

these seminal pieces of legislation have brought forth tremendous 

benefits. 

Growing up in the suburbs of Cleveland, Ohio, I recall visiting 

the Cuyahoga River on a class field trip in 1969 and will never forget seeing the surface of the river, which looked like a finger painting, water swirling with colors and powerful aromas. The same 

year of my visit, the Cuyahoga caught on fire from sparks of a 

passing railcar and burned for a week. 

Today, thanks to the Clean Water Act, many of our rivers are 

healthy and thriving. Today, thanks to the Safe Drinking Water 

Act, the overwhelming majority of people in this country have safe, 

reliable drinking water at the tap 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 

and 365 days a year. 

In my view, this outcome is one of the great public policy accomplishments of the last century and one of the often overlooked miracles of modern society. However, it is the success of these statutes 

that highlights the need to be flexible and thoughtful to ensure 

that we continue to derive success in the future. We still have 

water quality challenges to overcome and new threats on the horizon. 

Currently, DC Water is in the process of implementing two massive projects with a total cost approximating $4 billion. Under the 

terms of a 2005 consent decree, DC Water is implementing the $2.6 

billion Clean Rivers Project. The first phase is underway to construct a massive underground tunnel system to control combined 

sewer overflows to the Anacostia River. 

Our second massive undertaking involves removing nutrients 

from our treated water at our Blue Plains facility. EPA’s discharge 

permit requires us to reduce dramatically the level of nitrogen in 

treated water we discharge into the Potomac River, which leads to 

the Chesapeake Bay. The recently completed enhanced nitrogen removal project cost approximately $1 billion. 

DC Water has received some Federal funding for these initiatives, but the overwhelming portion of these projects is funded by 

our ratepayers and wholesale customers. Beginning in October of 

next year, the average monthly bill for a residential customer will 

for the first time be over $100, more than double the average bill 

when I arrived in 2009. 

Given the declining role of the Federal Government in funding 

water infrastructure, utilities like DC Water must account for all 

of our costs in the rates that we charge our customers. The price 

of clean and reliable water is increasing, and so is the need to replace aging infrastructure. 

I support full-cost accounting for water services that enables DC 

Water to fund our needs and enables our customers to make appropriate market choices on water use and conservation. I state this 

view with two reservations. First, as you well know, the District of 

Columbia is an urban area with a very high cost of living and a 

sizable low income population. Unfortunately, our affordability 

analysis demonstrates that many of our customers struggle to pay 

their water and sewer bills and will have even more challenges in 
7 

the future. This scenario is all too familiar to most jurisdictions 

across the country. 

The practical consequences that many jurisdictions are not able 

to raise rates to cover their needs because of the limitations of 

their lowest income customers. With constrained income, utilities 

will nonetheless undertake mandated work, reducing focus on basic 

infrastructure investments. The condition of these assets then continues to deteriorate, and utilities risk falling into a downward spiral of poorer service and reduced support. 

Second, I am also concerned that the success of our Nation’s 

water statutes pushes us to continue doing what we have always 

done, just more so, to a point of drastically declining benefits at the 

margin. DC Water faces enormous escalation of costs in reducing 

nutrient discharges. For the years 2000 to 2015, the capital cost to 

remove 1 pound of nitrogen has increased about 380 times. I believe there is agreement that Chesapeake Bay goals are well intentioned and deserving, but I also believe they could be met with a 

more flexible and holistic watershed approach that would include 

regulating non-point sources like runoff from suburban development and agriculture. 

I want to note that EPA has made progress in considering the 

fiscal impact of their regulations. Specifically, EPA’s Integrated 

Planning Framework provides the flexibility to consider community 

affordability and financial capability when making Clean Water 

Act determinations. 

Additionally, EPA Region 3 recently negotiated DC Water to 

modify our $2.6 billion consent decree for combined sewer overflows. As part of these negotiations, EPA thoughtfully considered 

the economic burden of the previous 20-year construction timeline 

placed on our low income customers. The modified agreement extends the latter stages of the project, which allows us to spread out 

rate increases. 

I am confident that no one intends for regulatory requirements 

to feed into a cycle that generates poorer service and diminished 

support. I am also confident that a clear solution exists: a Federal 

assistance program for low income customers. An example of a 

similar assistance program exists in the long standing and long 

successful Federal program to subsidize heating assistance, the 

Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program. Providing an 

income based assistance program for water utility bills would help 

our poorest customers with this essential service, enabling water 

utilities to increase rates for other ratepayers who can afford to 

help invest in water services and infrastructure improvements. 

I commend the subcommittee for holding this hearing and bringing attention to the impact Federal regulations have on State, 

local, and tribal governments and ultimately to all residents of the 

great Nation we live in. A balance must be achieved between protecting the environment and protecting our most vulnerable from 

rising costs. These endeavors are not mutually exclusive, and we 

look forward to working with the subcommittee on these matters. 

I will welcome your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hawkins follows:] 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. 

We will now hear from Professor Robert Glicksman. 

Professor Glicksman, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT GLICKSMAN, PROFESSOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 

Mr. GLICKSMAN. Chairman Rounds, Ranking Member Markey, 

and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to 

testify on the importance of the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

actions to protect health and the environment and on how regulatory procedures can impair the Agency’s ability to perform that 

function. 

My written statement makes four points which I will summarize 

today. 

First, the environmental safeguards EPA has put in place have 

delivered enormous benefits to the American people. Second, these 

safeguards should be available to all Americans, regardless of location or income level. Third, a hobbled regulatory system undermines EPA’s ability to carry out its statutory missions of protecting 

public health and environmental quality. And fourth, pending proposals to amend the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would create 

duplicative requirements that would hinder EPA’s ability to provide adequate health and environmental protection. 

Congress passed the Nation’s key environmental laws during the 

1970s by overwhelming bipartisan majorities. It formulated goals 

while delegating to EPA standard setting authority to achieve 

them. This approach has allowed EPA’s technical and policy experts to determine how best to achieve desired health and environmental protection goals in a manner consistent with legislative direction. 

Congress also built these laws on a cooperative federalism framework, which allows the States to implement EPA’s regulatory 

standards in ways that reflect State policy choices and accommodate local needs. 

Opinion polls consistently reflect the public’s strong support for 

these laws, and for good reason: their successes are impressive. For 

example, by preventing exposure to dangerous air pollutants, the 

Clean Air Act saves thousands of lives and avoids hundreds of millions of lost work and school days each year. EPA regulations have 

reduced the incident of dangerous blood lead levels which can create cognitive impairment in children from 88 percent in 1976 to 0.8 

percent in 2010. 

Because of the Clean Water Act, the percentage of surface waters 

meeting the Act’s fishable, swimmable waters goal increased from 

between 30 to 40 percent in 1972 to as much as 70 percent in 2007. 

These laws and regulations are not cost-free; they require those 

polluting the Nation’s air and water to upgrade the technologies 

used to reduce pollution. But a 2015 report by the Office of Management and Budget, which performs a watchdog role over regulatory agencies, concluded that the benefits of the major EPA rules 

issued between 2004 and 2014 outweighed costs by a ratio of up 

to 20 to 1. It also found that the monetized benefits of EPA’s Clean 

Air Act regulations alone accounted for up to 80 percent of all Fed-
13 

eral regulatory benefits across all of the agencies examined in the 

report. 

As new threats to public health emerge due to technological and 

other changes, it is critical that EPA retain its authority to continue to provide these important protections. 

EPA is obliged by statute to provide the same minimum level of 

protection for everyone, regardless of their geographic circumstance 

or economic situation. Generally, subnational governments over the 

years have supported EPA’s regulations. Some have even exercised 

the authority preserved to them under Federal law to adopt standards that are more protective than EPA’s. 

On occasion, State and local policymakers failed to take adequate 

steps to protect their citizens. Consequences can be dramatic, as 

the recent drinking water crisis in Flint, Michigan, illustrates. One 

reason Congress chose to require EPA to deliver universally applicable minimum safeguards was to ensure that everyone, including 

the Nation’s most vulnerable populations, enjoy basic public health 

protections. 

Some pending legislation, including bills that would amend the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, would hamper EPA’s ability to 

deliver that level of protection. EPA and other Federal agencies already must comply with procedural and analytical requirements, 

many of which duplicate each other, that make the process of 

adopting rules much lengthier than it has ever been. It can take 

years for EPA to adopt a single major rule. In the interim, the 

problems targeted by the rule continue to threaten public health 

and environmental quality. 

The proposed unfunded mandates amendments would aggravate 

the situation by imposing on agencies requirements that for the 

most part duplicate those that already exist under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Presidential 

executive orders. The bills express concern about duplicative regulations as a source of waste for businesses, but duplicative regulatory procedures have the same effect for governing. 

Delays resulting from an ossified regulatory process can harm interests across the board, including small businesses, States, localities, and tribes. The requirements that bills like H.R. 50 would impose on agencies would apply to repeal or modify rules that have 

become obsolete or that produce unjustified regulatory burdens as 

well to initial rule adoption. The Supreme Court has indicated the 

courts must review regulatory repeals with the same scrutiny as 

they do rule adoptions. 

While some provisions would not duplicate existing law, they 

would add little value to the regulatory process. H.R. 50, for example, would require agencies to assess the costs and benefits of regulatory action before issuing even a notice of proposed rulemaking. 

The point of the notice and comment rulemaking process is to solicit input from affected interests, including subnational governments, on whether the agency’s initial take is adequately informed 

and reflects sound policy. 

It is hard to see how an agency can perform a meaningful costbenefit analysis of a rule it has not even formulated in sufficient 

detail to be suitable for public comment. Costs of delayed protection 
14 

resulting from this requirement, therefore, are unlikely to be offset 

by the benefits of an improved regulatory process. 

For 70 years, the Administrative Procedure Act has provided a 

process for adopting rules. That process balances the need for timely and responsive action by agencies whose duties are to protect the 

public interest with the benefits to inform regulation that result 

from public participation. The law is not perfect, but the reforms 

being considered would exacerbate its weaknesses, not cure them. 

I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Glicksman follows:] 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 

Senator ROUNDS. Professor Glicksman, thank you very much for 

your testimony. 

Our next witness is Senator Mark Norris. 

Senator Norris, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK NORRIS, MAJORITY LEADER, TENNESSEE SENATE, ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL OF STATE 

GOVERNMENTS 

Mr. NORRIS. Thank you, Chairman Rounds and Ranking Member 

Markey, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I think it is very important that you are giving us this opportunity because one of the things that we are frustrated about at the State level these days is the lack of the opportunity to communicate in this way with our friends in the Federal 

Government. 

I am Mark Norris. I am the Senate Majority Leader from the 

State of Tennessee. I have the honor of serving the citizens of the 

32rd district, which I mention because it is part of the west coast 

of Tennessee. We are along the Mississippi River, which means we 

deal with things like basin authorities and the Corps of Engineers, 

which brings relevance to me today for why I am here. 

In the interest of full disclosure, I should also mention that I am 

the Senate representative from Tennessee on the Southern States 

Energy Board, and I had the privilege of serving as the chairman 

of the Council of State Governments in 2014, also known as CSG, 

and Chairman Rounds served as our president in 2010. 

So on behalf of CSG and State leaders throughout the country, 

we appreciate the opportunity to be heard. And I should also mention that CSG is the only organization of its kind that serves all 

three branches of government in all 50 States, so we understand 

bipartisanship, and we understand the separation of powers. 

Last week in Tennessee we celebrated the 220th anniversary of 

our statehood. This is statehood week whereby Tennessee became 

the 16th State in the Nation. The act was signed by none other 

than President George Washington himself, and Thomas Jefferson 

commented on our constitution in Tennessee as the least imperfect 

and most republican of State constitutions. It provides that the citizens have the power and the right of exercising sovereignty so far 

as is consistent with the Constitution of the United States, recognizing the Articles of Confederation and the Bill of Rights. 

And I mention this at the outset because really what we are talking about here today is sort of the two Cs, as I hear them, not only 

the Constitution, but more effective communication under the Constitution. 

As Chairman Rounds would particularly understand, the States 

are the foundation of our Federal system as enshrined in the Tenth 

Amendment. This is the foundation upon which States develop innovative ideas and policies and often fulfill their roles as the laboratories of democracy. But all too often today we find that those 

laboratories are being interfered with. State-based innovation is increasingly adversely impacted by the growth of some of these Federal policies and regulations and rules that we have been talking 

about which often manifest in the form of unfunded mandates. 
38 

We can talk perhaps in the Q&A portion of this, but Chairman 

Rounds mentioned the Clean Power Plan and the Clean Water 

Rule, both of which are being challenged by a number of States in 

Federal court. Interestingly, perhaps, Tennessee is not a party to 

the 111(d) legislation; it is a party to the waters of the State, the 

Clean Water rule litigation. And the difference is that the Federal 

Government, the EPA, and the particular departments and agencies involved in the 111(d) case gave us much more advanced notice, gave us much more opportunity to participate and be heard 

than was the case with the Clean Water Rule. 

Notwithstanding that, studies do show that Tennessee could experience electricity price increases of as much as 15 percent under 

the Clean Power Plan, and Tennesseans already spend an estimate 

average of 12 percent of their after tax income on energy, so the 

impact is disproportionately high. 

Along with the cost of financing these new unfunded mandates, 

the majority of Federal regulations have too often been enacted 

with insufficient input, if any, nor adequate consultation from 

State and local governments; and more often Federal agencies regularly process rules without even conducting an appropriate analysis of the potential economic costs as required by UMRA. This is 

what led, in part, to the formation of our federalism task force at 

CSG. My colleague, Alaska State Senator Gary Stevens, and I put 

forth a study over a period of 2 years to examine what we could 

do better to not only adopt a seat of principals that articulate a 

helpful vision, but how we would implement those. 

I have included in my submission a full list of the principals that 

we adopted, and they focus, generally speaking, on avoiding preemption, avoiding unfunded mandates, promoting State flexibility, 

promoting State input on international trade policy, and also focusing on civics; not only making sure that civics are being taught so 

that our next generation understands the nature of our government, federalism, how things work in our Republic, or should, but 

also make sure that we are teaching each other, as State legislators with responsibilities, about the rule of law and constitutionalism as it affects our daily responsibilities. 

It is this type of tension and the lack of constructive communication that has led to a number of initiatives, one of which is the 

adoption by eight States, including Tennessee, of the resolution 

calling for Congress to adopt the Regulation Freedom Amendment 

to the United States Constitution. 

In the past years, we have held a variety of meetings with the 

White House, Federal agencies, and Members of Congress on all of 

these issues, but all too often we feel as though we are incidental, 

rather than integral, to the process. In a word, folks feel the Federal Government simply doesn’t care, and that is not constructive 

for anyone. 

So this brings me to an important point, which is that we need 

to take a closer look at what we call consultation with the States. 

Many of our State legislators, like me, are truly citizen legislators. 

It is sort of a full-time part-time job. But it is very difficult for us 

to keep up with the proliferation of rules and regulations, even for 

our departments to do so and communicate with us in a meaningful way. 
39 

We are thankful for organizations like the Council of State Governments, which is our eyes and ears in Washington, but we also 

need to identify other real and concrete ways to improve the consultation process. 

In the past year, CSG has had the opportunity to chair the organization known as the Big 7, and under the leadership of CSG’s 

Executive Director, David Adkins, the coalition also worked to 

identify recommendations on how to improve the State-Federal regulatory process. Those recommendations are also included in my 

materials. 

As you will see, they include updating UMRA, establishing consistent State-Federal advisory committees within Federal agencies, 

and simply ensuring State legislators know how to contact each 

Federal agency, who to contact it, and how to do it in a meaningful 

way. Navigating the relationship between State and Federal Governments is no easy task, but we are hopeful that we can take 

practical steps to improve our cooperation. 

In conclusion, Members, I want to stress the importance of establishing a process that ensures States are true partners in our Federal system and not just another stakeholder. I believe, with your 

leadership, we can take steps to improve the outreach and consultation between our States and the Federal Government. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you 

today, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Norris follows:] 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 

Senator ROUNDS. Senator Norris, thank you very much for your 

testimony. 

We will now hear from our next witness, Commissioner Christian 

Leinbach. 

Commissioner Leinbach, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTIAN LEINBACH, COMMISSION 

CHAIR, BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, ON BEHALF OF 

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 

Mr. LEINBACH. Chairman Rounds, Ranking Member Markey, 

EPW Chair Inhofe, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am honored to testify today on the impacts of EPA 

regulations on State, local, and tribal governments. My name is 

Christian Leinbach, and I serve as Chairman of the Berks County 

Board of Commissioners in Pennsylvania, and today I am representing the National Association of Counties. 

While Berks County is considered urban, with a population close 

to 415,000, we have a diverse mix of urban, suburban, and rural 

communities. Manufacturing accounts for more than 30,000 jobs in 

our county, and agriculture is our No. 1 industry. 

As a county commissioner, I have seen firsthand how our local 

communities, major employers, and important infrastructure 

projects have been directly and indirectly impacted by Federal environmental regulations, and today, as you continue to assess Federal regulations and their impact on State and local governments, 

I would like to share with you three key points for your consideration. 

First, this is important because counties and other local governments play a key role in the Federal regulatory process. Counties 

build, own, and maintain a significant portion of public safety infrastructure that may be regulated under Federal and State laws. 

This includes over 45 percent of America’s roads and nearly 40 percent of all public bridges. We also own and maintain roadside 

ditches, flood control channels, storm water culverts and pipes, and 

MS4, just to name a few. 

But just as important as our infrastructure ownership, we share 

co-regulator responsibilities with Federal and State governments 

for a number of environmental programs, including the Clean Air 

Act and the Clean Water Act. So when EPA crafts new rules, their 

decisions have a direct impact on how we serve our residents at the 

local level. 

Second, the growing number of Federal regulations and mandates is significantly impacting counties and our residents. In recent years, the Federal Government has increasingly relied on 

State and local governments to shoulder implementation costs for 

more than just environmental programs. This has caused an imbalance at the local level since counties are limited in our ability to 

generate local revenue. In fact, more than 40 States limit our ability to collect sales, property tax, and/or other fees. These leave 

counties with a difficult choice: do we cut critical local services like 

law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency services or delay 

needed infrastructure projects? These choices have significant repercussions for our residents and businesses and affect the quality 

of life within our communities. 
67 

Counties nationwide continue to be very concerned about EPA’s 

water of the U.S. rule, the ozone rule, and risk management rule, 

which are quite complex and costly regulatory mandates that involve environmental compliance. These rules will extend Federal 

jurisdiction over a greater number of county projects and could 

compromise our ability to fulfill significant infrastructure construction, maintenance activities, and public safety responsibilities. 

Berks County has felt the effects of the growing number of EPA 

regulations over the past years. In fact, one of our largest coal-fired 

power plants shut down due to the NAAQS rules. Seventy-five employees lost their jobs, and these were quality jobs paying around 

$70,000 a year. 

Ultimately, counties support environmental protections and 

share many of the same goals as the Federal agencies. But we are 

concerned that the current rulemaking process does not take into 

account the true implications of these regulations. 

Finally, and most importantly, meaningful intergovernmental 

consultation will create greater clarity and increase the effectiveness of Federal regulations. Even though EPA has one of the 

strongest internal consultation requirements, it is inconsistently 

applied. Although waters of the U.S., ozone and risk management 

rule will have a major impact on county governments, we were not 

meaningfully consulted with, despite repeated requests. 

In conclusion, while we share many of the same goals as our Federal partners, the current consultation process must be strengthened. Counties, with our experience and expertise, stand ready to 

work with Congress to improve the Federal regulatory and consultation process. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Leinbach follows:] 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 

Senator ROUNDS. Commissioner Leinbach, thank you for your 

testimony. 

Our next witness is Chairman John Berrey. 

Chairman Berrey, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BERREY, CHAIRMAN, 

QUAPAW TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA 

Mr. BERREY. Thank you, and good afternoon, Chairman Rounds, 

Ranking Member Markey, and also Senator Inhofe and Senator 

Boozman. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today, and 

I am going to echo a lot of the same concerns these gentlemen 

have. 

I am the Chairman of the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma. We live 

in northeastern Oklahoma. We were the indigenous people of the 

State of Arkansas until the mid-1800s, when we were removed to 

Oklahoma, so we were across the river from our friend here from 

Tennessee. 

I have a prepared statement I have delivered to you, but I am 

just going to make a few points that I would like to point out, and 

hopefully you can understand better from the tribal perspective 

how a lot of these rules and regulatory mandates negatively impact 

the tribal governments and the Quapaw Tribe in particular. 

The Quapaw Tribe is a very progressive tribe. We are a self-governance tribe, which means that we do not rely as much as some 

tribes on the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of the 

Interior. We take the funding, and we manage it ourselves, and we 

provide those programs that the Federal Government has for years 

provided us that we manage ourselves. 

But we are more than that. We provide emergency medical service, fire protection, and law enforcement not just for our Indian 

community, but for the local non-Indian community in our area. 

Ottawa County, Oklahoma, we provide the greatest fire protection 

of all of the local governments. In 2011, the Joplin tornado, the 

Quapaw Tribe provided the 911 emergency services for the city of 

Joplin for 5 weeks post-tornado. So we are very involved in the 

community, and our resources are spent in the community, but 

they are not just targeted strictly to Native Americans. 

So I would like to talk to you that my tribe doesn’t have a tax 

base. That is part of being a tribe. We live on lands that aren’t 

taxed because it is under Federal jurisdiction, and it makes it so 

our lands are not taxable. In some ways that is a benefit to the 

tribes, but in other ways it makes it very difficult for the tribe to 

develop an infrastructure to help develop our communities. 

This means, like all Indian tribes, we must create opportunities. 

We must create economic development to ensure that we can provide the needs for our local community. We have a casino thanks 

to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. But we are more than that. 

We are building a USDA-inspected meat and beef, bison, pork processing plant now that, if I was building it across the street on fee 

land, it would take me probably half the money and half the time. 

But because I am on Federal land, and I have to follow the Federal 

rules and the mandates by the EPA, it is taking me twice as long 

and is costing me twice as much. And we are going to provide jobs 

not only for Native Americans but for the local community. And we 
119 

are going to provide a new source of meat cutters for the local grocery chains that are desperately looking for people to fill that 

trade. 

We have a heavy legal burden that is put on us because we are 

Native Americans, and we don’t get the opportunity to consult with 

the EPA and other agencies, so it makes it very difficult for us to 

keep up with the rules and regulations that come down the pike. 

Every time that the Quapaw Tribe tries to incorporate our resources to develop economic opportunity for not only our people, 

but for the people of the local community. 

Earlier, Senator Markey spoke of the Tar Creek Superfund Site. 

That is 40 square miles within our tribal jurisdiction. It is a scar 

you can see from the moon. It is the result of heavy zinc and nickel 

mining that left a lot of contamination on the land. I believe if it 

wasn’t for a lot of the regulations and the mandates by the EPA, 

we would probably be further along in the clean up than we are 

to date. Currently, the Quapaw Tribe is the contractor of choice for 

the State and for the EPA to do the removal of the contamination 

on the surface, but we are constantly facing new rules, new mandates that make it difficult for us to stay focused on doing what 

it is that we do to save the taxpayer money and get the work done. 

So we are constantly dealing with this Federal system of rules 

and regulations that impede us in our ability to work fast, gain financing, get projects going and get them completed to actually get 

something that creates more jobs, more economic development, and 

more opportunity. 

You can go across the country today, and you can fly at night, 

and you can see the reservations in the West purely because of regulatory mandates that tribes have difficulty meeting. The reservations are dark. You can go to North Dakota and you can spot the 

three affiliated reservations because it is dark, but everywhere 

around it is lit up as they are fracking and they are creating economic development using those resources that are there underground. But because it is so difficult for tribes under these rules, 

it is very visible at night because there is little activity. 

It is happening in Navajo, it is happening at Crow because of the 

coal rules. It has killed jobs, it has killed hope, and it has killed 

opportunity for so many Native Americans in those regions. These 

are places where people freeze to death in the winter. These people 

are hungry. They are rural, they are isolated, and they have very 

little opportunity. And when we create rules and regulations without consulting with the local community, we never really understand the impacts it has on those people until they are already on 

the books and the saw mills close, the coal fields shut down, and 

then the people begin to starve. 

So what we want, we are hoping for, and why we are very grateful for this opportunity is we want true consultation, we want true 

communication, and we want collaboration. We believe that we 

know what is best for our people. Native Americans don’t want to 

trash the rivers. We don’t want to trash the air. We don’t want to 

make the world a worse place for our grandchildren. But we believe 

that we have the insight and the respect for Mother Nature that 

is necessary to come up with rules and regulations that we can 

fund and that will make the world a safer and better place instead 
120 

of creating confusion and stagnation based on new rules that come 

out without any thought put into it with the local community. 

So on behalf of the Quapaw Tribe and all Native America, I want 

to thank you, Senator Rounds, Senator Inhofe, and you too, Senators Boozman and Markey for the work you do for Native Americans. I know you are trying to work in other venues to help the 

Indian people across this country, and we are very grateful for 

that. I am grateful for this opportunity today, and I look forward 

to any questions. 

If you want to come out and really see where these mandates 

that are unfunded has created havoc, come to the Quapaw Reservation and come see the Tar Creek Superfund site, which, for 30 

years, we have been battling this. They have spent millions and 

millions of dollars, but you can’t really see what has changed except what we have worked with with Senator Inhofe, who we have 

been able to get through by beating up the EPA and making the 

things work. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Berrey follows:] 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 

Senator ROUNDS. Chairman Berrey, thank you for your testimony. 

I would note at this time that, without objection, the written testimony of all of the witnesses will be included for the record. 

Senators will now each have 5 minutes for questions, and I will 

begin. 

Let me start with Senator Norris. Senator Norris, you were involved in an effort by the Council of State Governments to improve 

the role of States in the Federal process. Can you share with us 

some suggestions you have that could improve the Federal regulatory process through increased State participation? 

Mr. NORRIS. Thank you, Chairman Rounds. A couple of those 

that are enumerated in the materials we have submitted include 

these that come first to mind. 

First, establishing State and local government advisory committees within Federal agencies. Not to add to bureaucracies, but absent what we used to have, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, ACIR, there really isn’t anything equivalent 

to that today that is consistent through the Federal agencies, and 

we think that perhaps establishing a State and local advisory committee, something like that but perhaps a new generation, something different, within each Federal agency could help to ensure 

that there is consistent input and consultation and analysis of 

these proposed rules. 

In Tennessee we have the Tennessee Advisory Commission on 

Intergovernmental Relations, which I chair, and have for a number 

of years, and it becomes a pretty effective think tank as well as a 

roundhouse, if you will, for communicating with our stakeholders, 

the county governments, local governments, and other State agencies. 

Another idea is to develop an annual or perhaps a biannual session between agency staff and association staff. This would allow 

all groups to make introductions and facilitate dialogue, including 

with both political and career Federal agency staffs. Also, to exchange rosters of key contacts between senior agency officials, including career and political employees responsible for writing regulations. Again, this isn’t rocket science, it is not earth shattering, 

but it is sort of common sense changes that can be made at the administrative level to really effectuate more effective communication 

across all these levels. 

Those would be just two ideas, Chairman Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

Commissioner Leinbach, States and counties are not only responsible for administering State and Federal regulations, but they also 

must provide other critical services to citizens, such as waste management, law enforcement, emergency services, and education. How 

has the recent barrage of EPA regulations impacted counties’ ability to provide these vital services to American families? 

Mr. LEINBACH. Looking at Berks County as an example, we have 

had to deal with the issue of waters of the U.S. and the potential 

impact on costs for counties, the implementation of roads. If you 

look across the country, 45 percent of roads in America are owned 

and maintained by counties. We believe it is imperative that counties be brought into the process in the very beginning. 
129 

In Berks County we noted, and I have more details in my formal 

testimony, that we lost 70 jobs with our largest power supplier, and 

that was the Titus Station Generating Plant. Through the lead attainment standards several years ago, our largest employer, East 

Penn Manufacturing, over 7,000 employees, they were already 

meeting the new lead attainment standard for a year and a half. 

They had a year and a half of data. 

They came to the county and asked for help because they were 

notified that EPA was requiring 3 years of data. And in spite of our 

pleas to the EPA not to put that part of our county in non-attainment, they were placed in non-attainment. That meant that our 

largest employer during that period of time was not able to expand, 

and we were not able to attract manufacturing businesses to that 

region of the county. That has a direct impact economically. 

If you look at county government, we are concerned about the 

same issues that the Federal Government is concerned about. No. 

1, we believe in clean water, we believe in clean air, and public 

safety, No. 2, is our No. 1 job. The 911 services, police, fire, rescue, 

and those are costs we have to absorb. When we are challenged 

with the cost of regulations, those other areas often suffer. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, sir. 

My time has expired. 

Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

Mr. Norris’s testimony, Mr. Glicksman, cites a report that lists the costs of Federal mandates as being between $57 billion and $85 

billion every single year. But that very same report estimates the 

benefits of regulations to be between $68 billion and $103 billion 

per year. 

Professor Glicksman, do you agree that environmental regulation 

often produces more net benefits than the costs? 

Mr. GLICKSMAN. I do. And the OMB report from 2015 that I cited 

provides ranges of estimates of environmental benefits, environmental costs for various EPA regulations. The report in all cases 

provides estimates in which the upper estimate of regulatory cost 

is lower than the lowest estimate of regulatory benefit. So even in 

a worst case scenario EPA regulations are providing significantly 

greater benefits than the costs they impose. 

Senator MARKEY. Let me just stop there for 1 second. Let me just 

ask the next question, which is that EPA regulations have helped 

to protect wetlands and reduce lead in gasoline, making sure our 

drinking water is safe to drink and saves thousands of lives by reducing air pollution. 

Do any of you disagree that EPA regulations have made people 

healthier and improved our environment? 

Mr. LEINBACH. Senator Markey, I do not disagree. In fact, we believe, as counties, that our objective of clean air and clean water 

is consistent. And our issue is not with the desire for clean water. 

Senator MARKEY. OK, I understand. That is the question. 

Well, the situation in Flint, Michigan, has been a recent reminder that Americans look to the government to ensure that the 

water they drink is safe. Does anyone disagree that providing safe 

drinking water to everyone is an essential service that we must 

provide to every American? 
130 

[Affirmative nods.] 

Senator MARKEY. Well, let me then move on. Experts say $1 trillion is needed to upgrade drinking and clean water infrastructure 

and prevent future Flints. Congress provided not $1 trillion, but a 

mere $1 billion each in fiscal year 2016 for drinking water and 

clean water State revolving funds. 

Would you all support increased funding for communities to meet 

the public health standards established under the Safe Drinking 

Water Act and the Clean Water Act? 

Mr. BERREY. Well, I believe I would as long as they reduce some 

of the regulatory burdens that they have added to it that add the 

costs at the end of the day don’t complete the project. 

Senator MARKEY. But would you support Congress appropriating $1 trillion to help the tribes and help the cities and towns and 

counties to deal with the issues? 

Mr. BERREY. As long as it came along with a reduction with unnecessary regulatory involvement that doesn’t come with consultation with the tribes. 

Senator MARKEY. So you wouldn’t want the money if the regulations didn’t go away. 

Mr. BERREY. I would want the money, but I would want to be 

able to get a dollar for dollar for all the work that I put into it. 

Senator MARKEY. I appreciate that. 

From the District of Columbia, would you want that extra 

money? 

Mr. HAWKINS. Just to give a sense of perspective, of the $1 billion appropriated for the revolving funds, DC Water’s capital budget alone is $600 million. 

Senator MARKEY. That is what I am saying. Thank you. So $1 

trillion is what experts say is needed to help DC and to help all 

the other counties. 

Mr. HAWKINS. It would be the single best investment in our economy. 

Senator MARKEY. I agree with you. We should not have kids not 

having safe drinking water. 

The Clean Water Act ensures pollution is kept at a safe level in 

our water system. Does anyone disagree that tributaries that provide drinking water should be protected from the dumping of dangerous substances that harm public health and environment? 

Mr. NORRIS. Senator Markey, how would you define tributaries? 

Because that is a case in point. That is one of the things we are 

struggling with at State and local levels now. Your definition of 

tributary may differ from ours. You know, a cow path from my 

barnyard out to the pasture does not a tributary make. However, 

some regulators would disagree. And that is how we are at loggerheads with one another. 

Senator MARKEY. Well, again, we have an issue that if in fact 

any of these entities are dumping dangerous chemicals into that 

tributary, then ultimately some child somewhere downstream is 

going to be drinking it. So you have this real conundrum, don’t 

you? You want to protect young people from drinking water, especially in their formative years, and so it is a very profound question 

that allows somebody just to say, well, I am small, so I should be 

able to dump dangerous chemicals into the water. And that is fine 
131 

for that one entity, but what about for all of the children who then 

have that chemical in their water as they are drinking it and as 

their brains are still being formed? 

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LEINBACH. Senator Markey, one of the problems is the definition in Waters of the U.S. of a tributary, and it says, ‘‘a tributary 

can be a natural, man-altered, manmade water and includes waters such as rivers, streams, canals, and ditches.’’ 

Our challenge as commissioners, ditches are the areas along the 

side of a roadway which historically have not been regulated by 

EPA and Army Corps. Our challenge is not with clean water; our 

challenge is with the ambiguity of the rule itself. Most people 

would think a tributary is some type of body of water, but by its 

own definition it includes ditches in tributary, and that is problematic. 

Senator MARKEY. And again, I appreciate what you are saying, 

but a ditch used by a nefarious character can just be pouring huge 

amounts of dangerously laced water that has chemicals in it into 

the water. So one person’s ditch is another person’s tributary, especially if it is a bad person, and that is what we found in the 

Woburn Hazardous Waste Site in my congressional district. 

They were just dumping all this stuff into the groundwater, and 

that is why all these boys and girls wound up with leukemia up 

there. They were just using it as a place dumping these dangerous 

chemicals, and they did it as secret dumpers at night, just unloading it right into the water table; and to a certain extent that is 

what illuminated my attitude toward this from the late 1970s on 

and the creation of Superfund. 

And I would say, Chairman Berrey, that it is critical that we do 

fund Superfunds so that you have the funding that you need, but 

beginning in 1995, as soon as the Democrats lost power, there was 

a defunding of the taxes that the oil companies and the chemical 

companies had to pay into Superfund, which would have helped 

you with your problems. 

Thank you. 

Senator ROUNDS. As I move to Senator Inhofe, I just think part 

of the challenge here that we are seeing and that I think this 

brings out is that you have counties, who clearly are not bad actors, who have ditches that they are responsible for maintaining, 

and yet now they find themselves, under WOTUS, having to comply with new regulations that they did not have to comply with before, and it is adding to their costs. I think that is the point that 

I was hearing. It is good to have that discussion come up. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. I think, Mr. Leinbach and Mr. Norris, you ought 

to come out to Oklahoma and talk to our farmers. Tom Buchanan, 

who is the President of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau, says, and he 

is on record saying of all of the problems that farmers and ranchers, and we are a farm and ranch State, are facing, the worst is 

nothing that is found in the ag bill, it is the overregulation by the 

EPA. 

And of all the overregulation by the EPA, they say that the 

WOTUS, those regulations scare them the most because you don’t 

know. They have different people out there making their decisions 
132 

as to what is good, what is a bar ditch, what is something that only 

has temporary water after a storm. This is what I am concerned 

about. 

Chairman Berrey, tribes have different problems than the rest of 

the people at this table. Do you want to elaborate on any of those 

that are different because of the tribal application? 

Mr. BERREY. Well, I think that the real conundrum for tribes is 

some tribes, like the Quapaw Tribe, are sophisticated, and we are, 

with our resources, able to get a lot of intellectual help to develop 

our community. And we think, with consultation, if people at EPA 

would listen to us, we could get things done. 

I think my fears are there are rural tribes out there that don’t 

have the economic development that we have and the opportunities 

that we have, that they need added sort of capacity development 

to help them develop the regulatory and the infrastructure to manage their environment. 

So, fortunately for us, we are very educated about it because we 

are in a Superfund site. But I don’t think the problem with Superfund is just the lack of funding. A lot of it has been the management by the EPA in the clean up since it was identified as a Superfund site. They should have sat and talked to us a little bit, and 

we could have saved them about half the money they have wasted. 

Senator INHOFE. You know, you and I were both there when that 

happened, and it was a mess. 

Mr. BERREY. Yes, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Norris, it is interesting. You and I have 

a lot of things in common. I also was the chairman of the Oklahoma State Senate. You mentioned the ACIR. I haven’t heard anyone mention the ACIR, I bet, in 20 years. And 35 years ago Lamar 

Alexander was then Governor of Tennessee. He represented the 

Governors; I represent the mayors. 

And then, of course, you had a representative of every political 

level. And it didn’t occur to me until you said that that maybe that 

does have some application here. I mean, if you get together, you 

have the mayors and the Governors and the county commissioners 

and the State legislators, and representatives from here, that is a 

pretty good idea. 

Mr. NORRIS. Well, thank you, Senator Inhofe. I spoke with Senator Alexander several years ago, when this idea began percolating, 

and of course we both share the concern that I think was primarily 

responsible for the sunset of ACIR in the early 1990s, and that is 

as it relates to cost. Apparently it was an expensive organization, 

and there was bureaucracy associated with it that he and I would 

eschew. We are not looking to create another department; we are 

not looking to spend a lot of money. But again, I keep using the 

term common sense, and I am glad you picked up on it because 

there is some variation on what used to be ACIR that it seems to 

me would be an effective forum. 

Senator ROUNDS. What is ACIR again? 

Mr. NORRIS. The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. And if I remember correctly, I believe it was in 1994 or 

thereabouts that it sunset, as we say in State government. And I 

get that. We don’t want to create a new bureaucracy, but we need 
133 

a forum that is recognizable and that is recognized where we can 

exchange these ideas and have better results. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, I do want to pursue that with you. I think 

the idea is good. And I want to find out why that was so expensive 

and bureaucratic because, frankly, I don’t agree with that. We had 

the periodic meetings. 

Anyway, I do want to get one question in here because we recently had Administrator McCarthy, who said that she was unaware of any instances, and this will be for you, Mr. Leinbach, unaware of any instances where the EPA actions have negatively impacted jobs. That was her statement. That is a quote. 

When asked about the statement before this committee, sitting 

right here, McCarthy essentially said companies use EPA as an excuse. 

Let’s start with you and your response to that. 

Mr. LEINBACH. First of all, we have had direct experience in our 

own county and counties across the county, and counties across the 

country have experienced the same thing, that there absolutely are 

impacts. I need to emphasize again, as Senator Markey made, I 

think, legitimate points that EPA has played a critical role in 

cleaning up our environment over the last number of decades. We 

are not against the rules. We are concerned about the process. And 

there is an idea of federalism, that Federal Government, State government, and local governments ought to work together. 

We are not a stakeholder just like anybody else; we are in a 

unique intergovernmental relationship. And counties have people 

on the ground, our engineers, our county planners, people that 

know what needs to be done; and unfortunately, we are brought 

into the process very late in the game and are not able to have the 

impact on the rules. And Waters of the U.S. is a great example, 

and the recent ozone rules. Virtually no say. We are part of the 

partnership, and all we are asking is for that partnership to be 

brought back together. 

Senator INHOFE. Now, of course, we are concerned about ozone, 

too. All these things come within this Environment and Public 

Works Committee. 

Mr. LEINBACH. That is correct. 

Senator INHOFE. And that has such an effect on the lives of everyone, particularly everyone out there who is in business. 

Under the ozone, of course, that is done by counties, and there 

is legislation that Senator Thune I think is the primary mover of 

the legislation would say we are not going to have any more reductions in the ozone until 85 percent or something of the counties 

comply with the old. 

Do you think that is reasonable? 

Mr. LEINBACH. That is the position of the National Association 

of Counties, that we should not be imposing new ozone regulations 

until the 2008 standard is met. And I would add I have been elected by counties in the northeast United States to represent them, 

and this is an issue we have discussed in one of our monthly conference calls, because an ozone in the northeast counties, we are 

unduly impacted by prevailing winds. So how is it that we are 

going to be held accountable from a standard when prevailing 
134 

winds are one of the major factors, and we have no control what 

is happening upstream? 

Senator INHOFE. Well, let me ask you again to respond to this 

statement that she made before this committee. I know my time 

has expired, but let me at least get this in. 

Unaware of any instances where the EPA actions have negatively impacted jobs. 

Mr. NORRIS. Senator Inhofe, if I may be recognized. I would invite her to Erwin, Tennessee, the tiny town that was home to CSX 

Rail, which just late last year had to shut down its operations because of what we call the war on coal, and 300 jobs were lost overnight. There aren’t that many folks in Erwin, Tennessee, but I 

have been over there to talk with them, and now we are trying to 

find ways to retrain them and re-educate them to get them back 

to work. 

And I give that example because here we are in Washington, DC, 

and I know we talk in terms of hundreds of thousands of jobs. But 

in a town like Erwin, when 300 people go out because of the loss 

of coal, it hurts; and that is a pretty good example. 

Senator INHOFE. Excellent example. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

It would appear to me, as we listen to the witnesses, that there 

is a sense that everybody wants good environmental rules; everybody wants good environmental regulations. The challenge sometimes is to find that middle ground where we have the Federal 

Government looking perhaps not down at, as you may suggest, subnational governments but rather States, counties, and municipalities for their input in terms of true consultation. And that is kind 

of what I take away from this today, is the desire for true consultation. 

Reasonable people can have clean water and clean air and still 

do it in such a fashion that you have consensus that you build at 

the local level as well, and I suspect that that should be our goal 

and that perhaps we are not doing the best job of getting that done 

in the regulatory processes that we do today that could be improved upon. 

Before I close today, I would like to ask unanimous consent to 

enter a letter from the U.S. Conference of Mayors regarding a listing of multiple unfunded mandates that have been imposed on 

State, local, and tribal governments into the record. 

Without objection. 

[The referenced letter was not received at time of print.] 

Senator ROUNDS. With that, once again, I would like to thank 

our witnesses for taking the time to be with us today, and I would 

also like to thank my colleagues who have attended this hearing 

for their thoughts and questions. 

The record will be open for 2 weeks, which brings us to Tuesday, 

June 21st. 

Senator Markey, thank you for your participation and discussion 

as well today. 

And with that this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:47 p.m. the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ