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

21–351 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 111–1226 

LEGISLATIVE APPROACHES TO PROTECTING, 

PRESERVING AND RESTORING GREAT WATER 

BODIES 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE 

AND THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 24, 2010 

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 ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

FEBRUARY 24, 2010 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 1 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 2 

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from the State of California .................... 3 

Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada .................................. 5 

Ensign, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada ................................ 8 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria, U.S. Senator from the State of Washington ................... 10 

Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon ................................ 13 

Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten, U.S. Senator from the State of New York, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 146 

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 225 

Levin, Hon. Carl, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 226 

WITNESSES 

Silva, Hon. Peter S., Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency ................................................................................................. 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

Responses to an additional question from Senator Boxer ............................. 37, 40 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Cardin..................................................................................... 37, 46, 62 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 41 

Senator Gillibrand ..................................................................................... 59 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 60 

Sherman, Hon. Harris D., Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture ......................................................... 64 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 73 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 74 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 75 

Wright, Patrick, Executive Director, California Tahoe Conservancy .................. 125 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 128 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 133 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 134 

Dicks, David, Executive Director, Puget Sound Partnership ............................... 136 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 138 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 143 

Grannis, Alexander B. ‘‘Pete,’’ Commissioner, New York State Department 

of Environmental Conservation .......................................................................... 147 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 150 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 156 

Marriott, Debrah, Executive Director, Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership .................................................................................................................. 161 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 164 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 172 

Naftzger, David, Executive Director, Council of Great Lakes Governors ........... 176 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 178 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 182 
Page

IV 

Tauzel, John R., Senior Associate Director of Public Policy, New York Farm 

Bureau ................................................................................................................... 187 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 189 

Ullrich, David A., Executive Director, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities 

Initiative ............................................................................................................... 201 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 203 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 208 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statement from U.S. Representative Dean Heller from Nevada ......................... 227 

Testimony of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection ........... 228 
(1) 

LEGISLATIVE APPROACHES TO PROTECTING, 

PRESERVING AND RESTORING GREAT 

WATER BODIES 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee and Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 

9:30 a.m. in room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Cardin, Boxer, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, and 

Merkley. 

Also present: Senators Feinstein, Reid, Ensign, and Cantwell. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. The Committee will come to order. 

This is a joint hearing of the Committee EPW, along with the 

Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife. I want to thank Chairman 

Boxer for arranging today’s hearing. We have an excellent group of 

witnesses. 

This hearing concerns the great water bodies of this Nation and 

deserves our attention. Marylanders know from our own experience 

that the Chesapeake Bay is critically important to our region’s 

economy and to our way of life. And that has been passed from 

generation to generation, but it needs our attention. 

And in fact, the National Academy of Public Administration has 

recommended making large scale ecosystems restoration a national 

priority. Large ecosystem programs from the Chesapeake Bay to 

Puget Sound are addressing some of the Nation’s most complex 

water resource management challenges. For this reason, EPA’s latest strategic plan does prioritize protecting these ecosystems as a 

complement to their core national water quality program. 

The Water and Wildlife Subcommittee has devoted considerable 

time to the Chesapeake Bay, and more recently to the Gulf of Mexico. Today, we turn our attention to five more of our most valued 

waters. The hearing will focus on expert views on legislation to 

help restore Lake Tahoe, the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act, and to 

restore Puget Sound, the Puget Sound Recovery Act. 

We will also look at legislative approaches Congress might take 

to facilitate restoration of three other treasured waters, the Long 

Island Sound, the Columbia River Basin, and the Great Lakes. 
2 

Each of these vast water bodies is special and iconic, yet each is 

threatened by degraded water quality. Some threats are shared, 

like nutrient and sediment pollution. Others are unique, like the 

danger of wildfire in the forests that surround Lake Tahoe. Efforts 

to restore these important resources have struggled to keep pace 

with growing threats. 

It is for these reasons that so many of my colleagues and I are 

joined here today to meet these threats and restore America’s waters. We have a great deal of interest among our colleagues on each 

of these bodies of water. 

We will hear from two panels of witnesses that will share their 

thoughts on legislative efforts to strengthen interagency and Federal-State partnerships in each of these five regions. There is much 

in common in trying to preserve each of these great bodies of 

water, but each are unique. And we are looking for ways in which 

we can get best practices that we can share to make these programs as efficient as possible, as coordinated as possible, where we 

can learn from each of the different efforts that are being made in 

order to preserve these valuable resources for future generations. 

And with that, let me turn to the Chairman of the Committee, 

Senator Boxer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin, for taking the lead on this hearing today. You are a great Subcommittee 

Chairman, and I say that really from my heart because you are 

moving so much good legislation through this Committee. 

I am so happy that Senator Feinstein is here, great leader on so 

many of these issues and on the issue of Lake Tahoe in particular 

today. 

I would ask unanimous consent that my statement be placed in 

the record. 

Senator CARDIN. Without objection. 

Senator BOXER. And I am going to summarize it. We believe Senator Reid is on his way over, and if other colleagues come, I will 

pause. And then I have asked Senator Cardin, who has the gavel 

here, to go right to our Senate colleagues as soon as I finish these 

remarks. 

Many of our Nation’s most iconic bodies of water need protection 

to ensure that they continue to provide ecological benefits, economic benefits, and recreational benefits for generations to come. 

That really is our responsibility. 

We all remember the first time that we get to see Mother Nature. And for me, coming from a big city, the first time I saw Yosemite, I was absolutely speechless, and to this day when I see that 

valley, I am so grateful to those who came before us for preserving 

it. 

The first time I saw Lake Tahoe was a very similar experience, 

the clarity, the color, the different colors when the sun shone in 

certain ways. And I thought, you know, how blessed we are in California, but we have work to do to save this system. 

And so Senator Feinstein, Senator Reid, Senator Ensign and I 

are working to protect this natural jewel on the California-Nevada 
3 

line, Lake Tahoe. Of course, it is a major tourist attraction, and we 

want it to be, but we need to make sure that we protect it, and 

we need to make sure that it has these crystal clear waters for our 

children and grandchildren. 

So our bipartisan bill, the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2009, 

S. 2724, would authorize projects to address issues ranging from 

invasive species to wildfires, restore and maintain Lake Tahoe’s 

water clarity, and protect threatened species in wildlands. It would 

continue and strengthen the efforts begun under the Lake Tahoe 

Restoration Act of 2000. 

So in closing my comments, I would just say the natural beauty 

of our State is one of the defining characteristics of our State, and 

every history book that you read about California starts off with 

the natural beauty of the State. We simply can’t lose these magnificent treasures. 

So I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides 

of the aisle to move this legislation. And I also pledge to work with 

my colleagues from Washington State and from New York and 

Maryland and all the other colleagues who are working, just as 

Senator Feinstein and I are working to protecting these magnificent waterways in their States. 

So thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to hearing from Senator Feinstein. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer was not received at 

time of print.] 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you. I think we all thank you for 

your leadership on this Committee. You have focused it on the important priorities of our Nation, from the great waters to the great 

challenges that we have as a Nation in preserving our great environment. So thank you for your leadership. 

Senator Feinstein, we would be glad to hear from you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin, and 

thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

And Madam Chairman, I particularly want to thank you for 

working with me on these bills. This is the second 10-year bill. 

Senator Cardin, you might be interested to know that this all 

began when President Clinton was the guest and star at the Tahoe 

Summit almost 11 years ago. And this really called everyone’s attention to the plight of what was a deteriorating situation in a lake 

that is only one of two clear cold water lakes in the world like this, 

and certainly the jewel in the crown of both Nevada and California. 

We share that lake. 

Now, what happened was that a very unique private-public partnership was developed with the first bill, and that private-public 

partnership had about $300 million from the private sector put in. 

Both Nevada and California contributed through both Senator Reid 

and Senator Ensign. Nevada land sales helped fund the bill, and 

of course, Federal money. 

So this bill follows the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2000, 

which set this partnership into motion. And about $1.4 billion of 

the moneys I talked about have been invested, and that includes 
4 

$424 million by the Federal Government. It financed more than 

300 projects under the Environmental Improvement Program, leading to improvements across the board. Let me just tick off a few: 

improving erosion control measures on 429 miles of roadways. I am 

delighted to be joined by Senator Ensign, who has been very helpful, as I just said on the land moneys from Nevada with this. We 

appreciate it. 

We have restored 739 acres of wetlands, treated 33,000 acres of 

hazardous fuels, restored 14,000 acres of wildlife habitat, including 

800 acres of stream environment zones. 

Much work has been done, but much work lies ahead. And every 

year there is a Tahoe Summit. And either Senator Reid, Senator 

Ensign or those of us on the California side sponsor that Summit, 

and people, all groups from the lake come together and we go 

through a day of what the needs are and what the advances have 

been made. 

Now, what has changed? What has changed is that invasive species have now evolved into a real threat. University of California 

researchers have found up to 3,000 tiny sharp Asian clams per 

square meter at spots between Zephyr Point and Elk Point. So essentially, you have a 30-mile stretch which is dotted with these 

Asian clams, which are so sharp on the sand you can’t walk on 

them. They create a rotting algae on the lake’s beaches. 

An aquatic weed called milfoil is spreading along the shoreline. 

It is a nuisance to motor craft and may pump phosphorus into the 

lake. It is located at South Lake Tahoe. 

And finally, the quagga mussel could decimate the lake, much as 

it has Lake Mead. We found that just one quagga mussel attached 

to one boat could lay 1 million eggs. That is how prolific this thing 

is. And the cold water does not kill it. So the quagga is a big problem, and a program is being put in place to see that all boats that 

are brought in are checked before they are put into the lake because this infestation of quagga would clearly destroy Lake Tahoe. 

Also, catastrophic wildfires. The Angora Fire of 2007 destroyed 

242 homes on the west side of the lake. It scorched 3,000 acres, and 

it really was a wake-up call to all of us. Today, 25 percent of the 

Tahoe Basin’s trees are dead or dying, and these are virtually all 

national forests. These fuels could become wildfires that could incinerate the basin. 

Pollution and sedimentation threaten the lake’s water clarity. In 

1968, U.C. Davis scientists measured an average clarity depth of 

102 feet. When I was a youngster and went to Tahoe, it was 150 

feet. But in 1968, it was 102 feet. Clarity declined drastically over 

the next three decades, hitting a low of 64 feet in 1997. Now, we 

have seen improvements this decade. Last year, the average clarity 

was 69.6 feet, so that is a little bit better and scientists say that 

the rate of decline has slowed. We need to build on this, clearly. 

And climate change is adding to all of these problems. It is found 

that the ambient water is now 4 degrees warmer, as is the air. The 

basin is hot. It is tinder dry in the summer. It is vulnerable to 

wildfires. 

So this means the cyclical deepwater mixing of the lake’s waters 

occur less frequently, and this could significantly disrupt the lake’s 

ecosystem. 
5 

Now, what does this bill do? This bill authorizes $415 million 

over 8 years to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire and restore the environment. And I have a commitment from Steve 

Teshara, who is the head of the North Lake Tahoe Chamber of 

Commerce, that the private contribution will be $250 million, and 

that is good news. This would authorize $40 million for stormwater management 

and erosion control projects to prevent urban runoff. That is the 

greatest threat to water clarity. Authorizes $32 million for restoration of watershed and streams to reduce the amount of sediment 

flowing in the lake. Ninety percent of the sediment comes from 

Upper Truckee River, Blackwood Creek and Ward Creek, and these 

are the top priority projects. 

It would require prioritized ranking of environmental restoration projects and authorizes $136 million to implement these projects; 

$136 million also to reduce the threat of wildfires; $20 million to 

protect Lake Tahoe from Asian clams, quagga mussels and invasive 

species; $20 million to reintroduce the Lahontan cutthroat trout; 

and $30 million for scientific research to produce information on 

long-term trends in the basin and inform the most cost-effective 

projects. 

All projects funded by this legislation would be evaluated for cost 

effectiveness. There would be annual reports to Congress on the 

status of all projects, including expenditures and accomplishments. 

And scientific data would guide restoration programs to ensure 

that only top priorities are funded. 

So it is with a sense of urgency that I join with the majority 

Leader, with Chairman Boxer, Senator Ensign in asking this Committee to pass out the second Lake Tahoe Restoration Act. I believe 

that with this legislation we can rise to the challenges presented 

by these threats and build upon the gains set in motion by our first 

bill. 

I want to thank Senator Ensign for being here, for his support. 

Senator BOXER. And Senator Reid is here as well. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And I didn’t see Senator Reid. Thank you 

very much for being here. It was a pleasure to work with you on 

this bill. And I just want you to know that your interest is really 

appreciated, and when the Lahontan trout come back, I hope you 

will cook us a good fish dinner. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. We are going to proceed in the following order, 

with Senator Reid, Senator Ensign, Senator Cantwell, Senator 

Gillibrand, Senator Merkley. 

Let me just point out that Senator Reid is former leader of this 

Committee, very familiar with the work of Environment and Public 

Works Committee, and it is a pleasure to have you before our Committee. 

Senator Reid. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA 

Senator REID. I feel kind of awkward having come late and now 

being—— 
6 

Senator CARDIN. Well, we want to take the Lake Tahoe, so we 

will go to Senator Reid then Senator Ensign so we can take—— 

Senator REID. Oh, I didn’t want to be rude. 

I also thank Senator Feinstein for her love of this beautiful body 

of water that we share with her State. She came there as a child. 

I have heard her talk many times about her wonderful trips to the 

lake. 

Of course, Barbara Boxer, who is Chair of this most important 

Committee, also is a neighbor of ours, and we appreciate her interest in this. 

Senator Ensign went to high school around the lake as a young 

man, so his interest in the lake goes back a long time. 

I can remember the first time I saw the lake. I, of course, was 

a grown man at the time, and it was a marvel to me, having been 

raised in the southern part of the State where the water is very, 

very limited. 

So I am happy to be able to testify today. Lake Tahoe is both a 

natural wonder and a critical part of the States of California and 

Nevada’s economy. The report recently published shows that in 

2008, more than 23,000 people living in Lake Tahoe region are employed by the tourism industry there. Those same people earn more 

than $1.8 billion in income from tourism and tourism-supported 

jobs. 

And that is why I say that you, Madam Chair, and the members 

of the Committee, how important the travel promotion bill is. 

Think of what this could bring to our country in the way of tourists. There is only one other lake like Lake Tahoe in the world. It 

is Lake Baikal, an alpine glacial lake that is in Russia. I have had 

the good fortune of seeing that beautiful body of water. And people 

travel to all over the world to see Lake Baikal. 

We are going to spend some money now as a country advertising 

America, and this will be one of the featured spots of any advertisement. Lake Tahoe, as Mark Twain said, the fairest place in all the 

Earth. 

Since 1997, when we held the first Lake Tahoe Summit, a lot of 

strides have been made in restoring the health of the Lake Tahoe 

Basin, and I am really happy with what we have been able to accomplish. Major forest restoration is underway. Chill breaks have 

been developed around many neighborhoods. Marshes and wetlands have been restored, and the mighty Lahontan cutthroat trout 

will soon return to the lake. 

Over the past 13 years we have made Lake Tahoe a model for 

how to bring together local, State and Federal resources in the interest of protecting and restoring a great natural resource—in fact, 

a national treasure. Today, we ask for your partnership in continuing this work in and around Lake Tahoe. 

When the first Lake Tahoe Restoration Act passed in 2000, we 

had two primary goals in mind. First, we wanted to put a stop, to 

reverse the severe decline in the lake’s water clarity. Now, see 

Dianne, you and I when we talk about the clarity of the lake, I 

would have said 70 foot. I would have rounded off the 69.6. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I will buy it. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator REID. So we have made some headway there. 
7 

Second, we wanted to get high priority hazardous fuels and watershed restoration efforts underway. One of the things we have 

done, because that place was logged to death during the Comstock 

and after, there were all kinds of roads for timber and those were 

terribly bad for erosion. That stuff all went right into the lake. And 

we have closed many of those. We have wiped those old roads out, 

and that has been a great step forward. 

We have made progress in stopping the decline of the water’s 

clarity and get high priority fuels and watershed restoration efforts 

underway. We, and this is good, the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act 

that has been introduced, and we are talking about today, makes 

sure that this critical work will continue. 

First, this legislation does a lot more than any that we have done 

to carry existing programs forward. This legislation makes science 

a priority, calls for better management of public lands in the Lake 

Tahoe Basin, and takes aggressive action against threats that were 

simply unthinkable 10 years ago. 

Most notably, quagga and zebra mussels pose a grave danger to 

Lake Tahoe’s ecosystem. If these invasive critters make their way 

into Lake Tahoe’s water network, much of the work that we have 

done and will do is for naught. As the residents of the Great Lakes 

Region know all too well, when these mussels invade, beaches get 

coated with a sharp crust of shells, native fish and plant populations get out-competed for basic nutrient, and almost anything 

that comes into contact with the water gets covered with these 

shells. 

Let me give one just small anecdote with you that demonstrates 

the size of the threat to Lake Tahoe and the economies of Nevada 

and California. Quagga mussels were first discovered in Lake Mead 

in January 2007, 3 years ago. Now, 3 years later, scientists estimate that there are now 3 trillion—3 trillion quagga mussels in 

Lake Mead. 

In order to keep Lake Tahoe from suffering a similar fate, this 

legislation includes $20 million to support an unprecedented water 

craft inspection program. The new inspection regime will take some 

getting used to, but it is absolutely essential if we want Lake 

Tahoe and Lake Tahoe’s economy to remain vibrant and healthy. 

I want to take a moment to applaud the Federal employees at 

the Lake Tahoe Planning Agency, the counties, the towns, the businesses, and the nonprofit organizations that have come together to 

project this majestic corner of the West. We have a partnership at 

Lake Tahoe that works. We have demonstrated over the past decade that we know how to pair Federal funding with State and private resources to achieve results. What we are asking now is for 

a renewed commitment to Lake Tahoe and for the resources to restore and protect this national treasure for decades to come. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Senator Reid, for your testimony. 

We appreciate it very much. 

Senator Ensign. 
8 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENSIGN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA 

Senator ENSIGN. Well, thank you, and thank you for holding this 

hearing this morning on the great lakes around our country. Lake 

Tahoe certainly is, those of us who visit regularly, is one of the 

most spectacular, if not the most spectacular place in the world. 

And that is why we put so much effort into not only preserving the 

lake, but actually trying to restore it to what it used to be. 

If you go there and just look generally at the lake, it looks just 

as beautiful as it ever did. But it is when you get down and you 

start looking at some of the scientific evidence, you realize that 

there are some grave threats to the lake. 

Madam Chairman, I would ask that my full statement be made 

part of the record, and since a lot of what was in my statement has 

already been covered, I will try to summarize and try to move this 

along as quickly as possible. 

Senator CARDIN. Without objection all the statements will be included in the record. 

Senator ENSIGN. First of all, I want to applaud Senator Feinstein 

for her leadership on the original Lake Tahoe Restoration Act, and 

also for leading the way on this one. It has been a pleasure to work 

with her and her staff, and also with Senator Reid and Senator 

Boxer on this most important legislation. 

We have made a lot of progress, a lot of scientific progress on 

fuels reduction, on reversing some of the clarity, and a lot of the 

projects around the State. The original Act, which authorized $300 

million, unfortunately was not fully funded. So Senator Reid and 

I, when we were doing public lands bills for Nevada we took some 

of the proceeds, really the proceeds from Southern Nevada, because 

we know that people in Southern Nevada actually love Lake Tahoe 

as well, and some of those proceeds from the land sales in Southern 

Nevada were put toward funding this authorization bill that was 

passed back in the late 1990s, and we funded those projects up at 

Lake Tahoe. 

Funding came from the State of California. It came from the 

State of Nevada. Some came from the Federal Government, but 

most of the money has now come from the Southern Nevada Public 

Lands Management Act and other lands bills that we have passed 

since that time. 

One of the things that we insisted was that we didn’t just fund 

projects that were people’s wish lists. That is why we have had 

science back up everything that we have tried to do. And in this 

bill science is going to do the same thing. Basically, we try to get 

as much bang for the buck. We try to prove things are actually 

working, and if not, put the money into other things. Because you 

have very limited resources up there, and we have to go after the 

biggest problems that we can possibly go after. 

Point at and reemphasize a couple of points that have been 

made. One is that catastrophic fire is still an incredible threat. We 

saw it with the Angora fire, some of the other fires that we have 

had up there. And you look at a lot of the Western forests. We love 

them so much that we quit putting out forest fires for the last 100 

years. 
9 

Well, there are more trees in the Lake Tahoe Basin today than 

there were 200 years ago. The problem is that because it is a 

desert forest, the big trees used to be kind of spread out, so when 

the fires would come through naturally and clean out the underbrush, you wouldn’t have as much fuel buildup. Because of putting 

fires out for so many years, we now have a huge build up of fuels. 

And also because these are all second growth because of the logging that occurred around the Comstock era, we now have a lot of 

fir trees instead of the big Jeffrey pines and Ponderosa pines that 

we used to have. And these are smaller trees. They crowd out, and 

they get a lot of underbrush growing around them. And so when 

fires happen, the fuel is so intense the fires don’t burn naturally. 

They burn much hotter, and they literally can sterilize the ground. 

And they also spread much faster than they used to spread, so 

they are a lot more difficult to control. So there is a greater threat 

to buildings, to human lives, to businesses. 

As far as other environmental threats to the lake, obviously erosion has been something we have been working on. We have made 

a lot of progress. Still have some work to do there. But it was mentioned, these invasive species, both plant and animal species, are 

a tremendous, tremendous threat. 

One of the things that Senator Reid didn’t mention about the 

quagga mussels in Lake Mead is that these quagga mussels, when 

they attach, for one thing, to a drinking, like to the water pipes 

that come to Las Vegas to bring our water in, they don’t just attach 

to the outside. They literally burrow along miles around the pipe 

in. And so removing them is not an easy task. 

And if people say, well, you know, this is California and Nevada’s 

problems, we have to remember these are invasive species to all of 

these lakes. These things can spread all over the country and 

would be a grave threat to water bodies all over the country. So 

we need to make sure that this doesn’t spread from lake to lake 

to lake around the West and then get into other parts of the country as well. 

So Lake Tahoe, first of all, is a national treasure. It deserves national attention. And second is that if people are concerned about 

other parts of the country, this needs to be an absolute national 

priority. 

So Senator Feinstein has laid out exactly what the bill is going 

to do. It is something I am completely supportive of. It is an absolute priority to get the authorization bill done, especially because 

without the authorization bill we don’t have the mechanism set up, 

for instance, for the inspection stations that we need for the quagga 

mussels and to keep other invasive species from coming in. 

So thank you very much for holding this hearing, and we hope 

that this legislation can be passed as quickly as possible, simply 

because if these invasive species get in, Senator Feinstein mentioned one of them gets in, then it can be literally disastrous and 

very difficult to control. And the Asian clam is a perfect example 

of once it gets in, it is very, very difficult to come up with a solution once they are in. 

So thank you very much for holding this hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Ensign was not received at 

time of print.] 
10 

Senator CARDIN. Well, as a person who has enjoyed Lake Tahoe, 

let me thank all the Senators from the two States for their leadership on this. It is the right model, using good science and partnership to try to attack the problem. 

So thank you very much for your testimony. 

Senator Cantwell. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Subcommittee Chairman Cardin, for holding this hearing. This is a very important 

hearing on the protecting and preserving and restoring great waters of body in the United States, so I appreciate it very much. 

And thank you for inviting me to make some comments on my 

Puget Sound Restoration Act. I would also like to thank Congressman Dicks and Senator Patty Murray for working on this legislation with me. Today, you will also be hearing from Mr. David 

Dicks, the Executive Director of the Puget Sound Partnership, 

which is the State agency dedicated to Puget Sound restoration. 

With 2,500 miles of shoreline and 2,800 square miles of inland 

marine waters, Puget Sound is the Nation’s second largest estuary. 

The Sound is the cornerstone of the Pacific Northwest’s identity 

and at the heart of the region’s prosperity, promoting thriving marine and natural resource industries. 

And it is truly one of America’s most spectacular bodies of water, 

home to more than 200 species of fish, 25 kinds of marine mammals, 100 species of birds, as well as clams, oysters and shrimp. 

But while above the water’s surface we see its breathtaking natural beauty, the reality is that there are great parts of Puget 

Sound that are not so healthy. Scientists have detected low levels 

of oxygen and increasing concentration of toxic substance, which is 

inadequate for animals that live in the Sound, and some of its most 

iconic residents, species like the salmon and orcas, are on the brink 

of extinction. 

Up to 70 percent of all of its original estuaries and wetlands have 

disappeared, and about 8,700 acres at the bottom of Puget Sound 

are dangerously contaminated. The declining health of Puget 

Sound threatens the economy and economic vitality of the Pacific 

Northwest. That is why Washington State’s Governor Chris 

Gregoire, who has testified before this Committee several times, 

has taken steps at the State government level to combat this decline by setting up the Puget Sound Partnership. 

But now it is time for the U.S. Government to help match these 

efforts with the Environmental Protection Agency taking a lead to 

create the Washington State Program, a comprehensive recovery 

effort for Puget Sound. Already we have launched a cooperative effort involving all of the local government entities, as well as State 

and Federal Governments to curtail any harmful substances from 

being introduced into the waters, change the unwise industrial and 

agriculture practices, and continue our aggressive research into the 

causes of pollution in the Sound. 

The Puget Sound Recovery Act furthers these efforts by establishing the EPA Puget Sound Office in the State of Washington and 
11 

coordinating actions among many Federal agencies involved in the 

clean up, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, Park Service, 

Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USGS, the 

Army Corps of Engineers, the Departments of Commerce, Defense, 

Homeland Security and Transportation. In addition, the bill authorizes up to $125 million in annual 

grants to address the causes of Puget Sound’s decline and implementing projects to counter these threats. 

Mr. Chairman, what we are trying to accomplish with Puget 

Sound Restoration Act is not a new concept. I know, as a resident 

of the Chesapeake Bay area, you understand in the Chesapeake 

watershed how important this EPA program is and how important 

a clear Federal-State partnership must be if we want to accomplish 

our goals. 

The Chesapeake Bay was the Nation’s first estuary targeted by 

Congress for restoration and protection. And since the formation of 

the Chesapeake Bay Program in the 1980s, it has served as a 

model for the effectiveness of cooperation in the approach to natural restoration efforts. The Bay Program’s partnership model has 

been recognized and emulated, and the program has been a success. 

Mr. Chairman, you know that more than 20 years of restoration 

on the Bay have resulted in generally decreasing trends in nitrogen 

and phosphorus pollution levels entering the bay, and so that is a 

very important accomplishment. So this is exactly what we are trying to accomplish with Puget Sound as well. 

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing this bill to be part 

of today’s hearing, and I look forward to working with you and 

other members of the Committee on moving this legislation forward. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, Senator Cantwell, thank you for your testimony. There are many similarities between Puget Sound and the 

Chesapeake. And I think having your own office and bringing together the stakeholders so that you have a comprehensive plan 

using the best science information that is available, you can make 

a huge difference. 

The progress made on the Bay, but for the Chesapeake Bay Program, we would have seen a degrading of the Bay much worse than 

it ever could have been achieved in what we have been able to do. 

So it has been a great success, but we have a lot more to do on 

the Chesapeake Bay. And I think you are taking in your proposal 

the model that worked with the Bay, and we look forward to working with you on your proposal. 

Senator CANTWELL. And I think that is why we want to get started because we know it takes a long time. 

Senator CARDIN. It does. And you have to get the partnerships 

in confidence together. 

Let me turn to Senator Boxer for an introduction, and thank you 

again, Senator Cantwell, for being here. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. As you know, we have votes back and forth, so 

people are going to be coming and going, but don’t be distracted. 

It is our world, and it is the way it is. 
12 

Could Patrick Wright raise his hand? Patrick, there you are. I 

just wanted to make sure that I gave you your due as far as an 

introduction. 

Patrick Wright is the Executive Director of the California Tahoe 

Conservancy. I am just introducing you before you speak because 

I have to go vote and do something with the leadership conference 

on the jobs bill. So Patrick Wright is the Executive Director of the 

California Tahoe Conservancy. I can’t imagine a better job, frankly, 

an independent State agency within the Resources Agency of the 

State. The California Tahoe Conservancy was established to improve water quality in Lake Tahoe, preserve the scenic beauty and 

recreational opportunities of the region, provide public access, preserve wildlife habitat areas, and manage and restore lands to protect the natural environment. 

Prior to his appointment, Mr. Wright served as the first Director 

of the California Bay Delta Authority, where he was responsible for 

overseeing the implementation of the largest and most comprehensive water management and ecosystem restoration effort in the Nation. 

And correct me if I am wrong on this one, but the Bay Delta 

serves about, what, 24 million people with water. Is that right? I 

even got an eyebrow look. It is hard for people to believe what the 

situation we have there with our water. 

Wright has also served as Resources Agency Deputy Secretary, 

Assistant Secretary for Program Development, and Senior Adviser 

to the Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency, and to the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Interior. 

I think it is such a wonderful resume. I want to have the chance 

in case I can’t be back to welcome him and to say to him and all 

of you who are here because of your love of these amazing bodies 

of water, we are very, very, very serious about moving on these. 

And I said before about Senator Cardin, when he took this Subcommittee chairmanship, he really is someone who gets the job 

done. So I think you can feel good that we are going to move on 

a lot of these things. 

So thank you very, very much. 

Mr. Chairman, what is your situation? You are waiting to be relieved? 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Merkley is going to be coming back momentarily. Senator Merkley wants to introduce the Columbia River 

Basin Initiative. I believe also Senator Gillibrand wants to talk 

about the Long Island Sound Great Waters. 

What we are going to do, with everyone’s permission, we are 

going to take a very short recess. I expect that Senator Merkley 

will be back momentarily, who will then reconvene the joint full 

Committee-Subcommittee for the purposes of introducing their recommendations for those bodies of water, and then we will go directly to the first panel. 

Thank you. We will stand in recess. 

[Recess.] 
13 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Senator MERKLEY [presiding]. The Committee will come to order. 

We will reconvene the Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife and 

the full Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. 

Things are a little chaotic with votes. We are going to utilize the 

time that we have. I am going to give a presentation on the Columbia Water Basin. At that point, Senator Gillibrand may be back, 

and we will go to her testimony, and then hopefully the Committee 

members will be back, and we will turn to the panel. 

So, good morning. I would like to thank the Chair, Senator 

Cardin, for convening this hearing, for including the important 

issue of the threats facing the Columbia River Basin. And I will be 

testifying in support of the Columbia River Restoration Act of 2010. 

The Columbia River Basin is the great river system that defines 

the Pacific Northwest. It runs more than 1,200 miles from Columbia Lake in British Columbia at its mouth to Astoria, Oregon. And 

its basin drains more than 250,000 acres in seven States, including 

portions of the Yellowstone Plateau, the Rocky Mountains, the volcanic Snake River Plain, Hells Canyon, which is the deepest canyon in the United States, the salt plains and high desert of eastern 

Oregon and Washington, the majestic Columbia River Gorge, and 

the temperate rainforests and volcanic slopes of the Cascade Mountains. 

Its tributaries are the major rivers of the Northwest. The Snake 

River, the longest tributary, runs more than 1,000 miles from hear 

the continental divide in Yellowstone Park in Wyoming until it 

flows into the Columbia in eastern Washington. The Clarks Fork 

is Montana’s largest river by volume, draining much of western 

Montana and turning into the Ponderay River in Idaho before it 

flows into the Columbia just across the border in Canada. 

The Columbia is also the lifeblood of our Northwest economy. It 

has been the foundation of a trade-based economy stretching back 

thousands of years. Today, it is the cornerstone of the region’s shipping network, with ports dotting the river as far upstream as 

Lewiston, Idaho, the furthest inland seaport in the West. The Columbia, once host to the world’s largest wild salmon run, is still the 

foundation of much of our fishing industry. 

The Columbia River Basin is the backbone of our energy system, 

with a network of dams that provide the majority of the region’s 

electricity. When we talk about major generating capacity, we often 

talk about 100-megawatt or 200-megawatt capacity wind farms or 

600-megawatt or 800-megawatt coal plants. The Grand Coulee 

Dam in central Washington on the Columbia, by itself, has a capacity of 6,800 megawatts. And it was the availability of low cost 

power that brought the industrial area to the Northwest and 

brought a host of benefits from rural electrification to irrigation. 

And you all might recall that the Columbia River in many aspects was memorialized in the 1940s by songs by Woody Guthrie. 

I am told that he wrote 17 songs that touched on the Columbia, 

but the one that every Northwest school child learned was Roll On, 

Columbia. So it is deeply embedded in our culture as well as our 

economy. About 4 million acres of income producing farm and 
14 

ranch land across the Pacific Northwest are irrigated by the Columbia River, contributing $10 billion to our economy every year. 

Unfortunately, this great river basin faces serious challenges. 

Our rivers are severely polluted. EPA’s Columbia River Basin Fish 

Contaminant Survey found 92 toxic pollutants in the tissue of fish 

in the basin. I am going to ask my team to put up the first chart. 

As this first chart shows, one of the toxic pollutants found in fish 

across the basin is mercury, and at serious levels. Each of the red 

and yellow dots represents samples that exceeded EPA’s human 

health guideline. 

A second chart shows widespread and even more serious contamination by DDT. Now, it is measured by DDE, which is a breakdown product of DDT. DDT was banned in the 1970s, but you can 

see that high levels of contamination still persist in many parts of 

the basin. 

Indian tribes have made this basin their home for thousands of 

years, including the Warm Springs, the Nez Perce, the Umatilla, 

the Yakima. And they are among the most affected. A survey conducted by the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission found 

that tribal members consumed between 6 and 10 times as much 

fish as the national average, as this chart shows. High consumption rates existed among all tribal members consuming fish as well 

as among specific high risk groups including breastfeeding women. 

And of course the salmon and steelhead upon which the tribes and 

also the fishing communities of the Northwest have so long depended are in serious decline. 

The good news is that stakeholders across the region are working 

to clean up and restore the river. Since being added to the National 

Estuary Program, a robust partnership involving 28 cities, nine 

counties, the States of Oregon and Washington, has come together 

to coordinate habitat restoration and toxic contamination reduction. 

The EPA has coordinated stakeholders throughout the basin, including the States of Idaho and Montana and tribal governments, 

working to improve toxic pollution monitoring and working to reduce and clean up contamination. 

But more needs to be done. While EPA has designated the Columbia River Basin as one of the Nation’s great water bodies, and 

has an active program in the basin, the Columbia River Basin is 

the only one of these great water bodies that doesn’t receive designated appropriations to support restoration. 

Unlike the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes, where Congress has directed comprehensive restoration programs, the Columbia River Basin has no such program. It is in this context that I 

introduced yesterday, along with colleagues from the Northwest, 

the Columbia River Restoration Act of 2010. The bill directs EPA 

to coordinate restoration efforts consistent with restoration and 

toxics reduction actions plans and to coordinate and fund projects 

to implement those plans. 

And I look forward to hearing today from the EPA and from a 

witness from the region on the challenges facing our river and its 

basin, and I look forward to working with them as well as with my 

colleagues on this Committee and throughout the region, to consider this bill. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 

Senator MERKLEY. So we are going ahead and call up the first 

panel, Hon. Peter Silva, Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. And I would ask that he be 

joined by Hon. Harris D. Sherman, Under Secretary for Natural 

Resources and Environment, United States Department of Agriculture. 

And while they are taking their seats, I will add a little bit more 

introduction. Mr. Silva has over 32 years of public sector experience in the water and wastewater fields, with extensive knowledge 

of U.S.-Mexico border issues. Prior to joining EPA, he was a Senior 

Policy Adviser on the Lower Colorado River issues for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Before that, he 

served for 6 years as the Vice Chair of the California Water Resources Control Board, having been appointed by both Governors 

Davis and Governor Schwarzenegger. 

The Honorable Harris D. Sherman, before joining USDA, from 

2007 until he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate for this position, 

he served as the Executive Director of Colorado’s Department of 

Natural Resources under Colorado Governor Bill Ritter. During 

that time, he also served as Director of Compact Negotiations for 

the Colorado Interbasin Commission, Chair of the Colorado Oil and 

Gas Commission, and Co-Chair of the Governor’s Forest Health Advisory Council. 

Previously, in an earlier point in his career, he also served as Director of Colorado’s Department of Natural Resources under thenColorado Governor Richard Lamm. 

Welcome to both of you. We are looking forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PETER S. SILVA, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

Mr. SILVA. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am Peter Silva, Assistant Administrator for the Office of 

Water at EPA. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss EPA’s programs addressing these large aquatic ecosystems. 

We have known long that large aquatic ecosystems are among 

the most ecologically valuable and productive areas on Earth. 

These ecosystems foster a wonderful abundance and diversity of 

wildlife, like sea and shore birds, fish, marine mammals and shellfish. Our estuaries and rivers function as feeding, spawning and 

nursery grounds for many marine and terrestrial finfish, shellfish, 

birds and plants, supporting unique communities that are especially adapted for the life on the margin of the sea. 

These areas are also dynamic economic engines for many industries vital to the Nation, including sport and commercial fisheries, 

agriculture, transportation, recreation and power generation. 

However, many of these same activities have disrupted natural 

processes and impaired water quality, in some areas to the point 

where human health is at risk. And these ecosystems and the 

plants and animals that depend on them are threatened. 

EPA has long recognized the importance of improved protection 

of the Nation’s large aquatic ecosystems. We support the National 
20 

Academy of Public Administration recommendation of ‘‘making 

large scale ecosystem restoration a national priority.’’ 

The EPA strategic plan of 2006 to 2011 provides for a significantly expanded effort to protect large aquatic ecosystems as a 

complement to the implementation of core national water quality 

programs. These large ecosystem programs are addressing some of 

the Nation’s most complex water resource management challenges 

such as nutrient loading, stormwater overflow, and toxic sediments. 

The plan describes environmental goals for each large aquatic 

ecosystem and measures that EPA is using to monitor progress toward these goals. The EPA Office of Water recently established a 

National Council of Large Aquatic Ecosystems to work with EPA 

to better support and promote efforts to protect these large aquatic 

ecosystems. 

Key goals of the council are to encourage exchange of best management practices, improve coordination among these large programs and core national programs, strengthen links between ecosystem programs and the EPA strategic plan and budget, and focus 

EPA research on the top priority needs of the ecosystems. 

I will only focus very briefly on the ecosystems, as has already 

been mentioned, by and large. First, the Columbia River Basin, the 

goal of this basin program is to protect public health and the environment by reducing toxics in fish, water and sediment and implementing a collaborative monitoring and research strategy to understand toxic loads, emerging contaminants and overall ecosystem 

health. 

For the Great Lakes, the Great Lakes have been degraded for 

many years due to toxics, wetlands degradation, land use changes, 

invasive species and pollution from antiquated sewer systems. EPA 

is coordinating the President’s Great Lake Restoration Initiative 

across Federal agencies to fund the highest priority activities under 

the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative action plan. 

For Lake Tahoe, you have heard a lot of discussion about that. 

It is designated a national resource water under the Clean Water 

Act. Lake Tahoe Basin continues to be threatened, however, by impacts of land use and transportation patterns, invasive species and 

other factors. The EPA and its partners are working to implement 

measures to address these threats. 

Long Island Sound is a cooperative effort to restore and protect 

the Sound, implementing specific amendments to improve water 

quality, protect habitat of living resources, educate and involve the 

public, improve the long-term understanding of how to manage the 

Sound, monitor progress and apply adaptive management. 

For the Puget Sound, the Puget Sound-Georgia Basin, a large 

aquatic ecosystem in Washington State and British Columbia, is 

one of the most ecologically diverse ecosystems in North America. 

EPA is focusing on several interrelated efforts including participating in the Puget Sound Partnership with Washington State, 

interagency coordination at the Federal level, trans-boundary coordination with Canada, and implementing EPA’s relevant programmatic authorities. 

Just last, I want to just cover our relationship with the National 

Estuary Program. This program was established by section 320 of 

the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987, with a mission to pro-
21 

tect and restore nationally significant estuaries. The NEP currently 

includes 28 programs. Two of the NEPs are co-located with LAEs 

I have discussed today, Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership 

and Puget Sound Partnership. 

I would urge that both the Columbia River Basin and the Puget 

Sound bills be carefully reviewed to assure they do not duplicate 

existing NEP efforts. 

Just in conclusion, the programs we discuss in this testimony are 

critical parts of EPA’s clean water strategy. They are effective, efficient and collaborative, and they have demonstrated the value of 

partnering to achieve environmental results. I look forward to 

working with you on maintaining and enhancing these important 

programs. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Silva follows:] 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
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 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. We greatly appreciate your testimony. And rather than break for questions at this point, we will 

proceed to the testimony of Mr. Sherman. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HARRIS D. SHERMAN, UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Senator Merkley. 

I am Harris Sherman, the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and the Environment at USDA. Senator, I appreciate the 

opportunity to be here and to testify on S. 2724. 

I don’t want to repeat what the other witnesses have said, but 

I do want to reiterate the just extraordinary nature of Lake Tahoe 

and the surrounding national forest. They are truly national treasures, and they deserve our protection. 

This area has been subject to impacts from land disturbances 

both on public and private lands from changes in transportation 

patterns and from changing climatic conditions. The Administration supports 2724, a bill, in our view, that carefully aligns with 

what Secretary Vilsack has expressed in his national vision for 

America’s forests. The Secretary’s vision acknowledges the need for 

a complete commitment to forest restoration through an all lands 

approach. And the Secretary has also frequently spoken and recognized the importance of healthy forests to protect clean water. 

So this all out approach to successfully managing these lands adjacent to and surrounding Lake Tahoe we believe has been successful over the past 10 years, and we need to continue moving forward 

with this effort. 

So this bill does continue funding, planning and implementation 

of significant environmental restoration and forest management activities. The bill specifically provides for a $415 million Federal 

share over an 8-year period which will go to improving water clarity and quality, reducing the threat of catastrophic wildfires, improving the environment and combating invasive species. 

Some of the highlights—at least from the perspective of the Forest Service—are the following. First, the bill would authorize 

$136 million for fire risk reduction and reforestation. Of that 

amount, at least $80 million will be made available to the Forest 

Service to treat hazardous fuels, and a portion of the $136 million 

may also be used for the Angora fire restoration projects. 

I brought with me a few examples, before and after examples of 

the types of projects which can occur under this bill. First, there 

is an example of a fuels reduction project that would be funded 

under section 6 or section 8 of the bill. As the before and after nature of these photographs indicate, these projects can be very, very 

helpful, particularly in the wildland-urban interface areas. What 

you are seeing here is consistent with the Lake Tahoe multi-jurisdictional fuel reduction and wildfire prevention strategy. 

The bill would also authorize $136 million for a wide variety of 

environmental restoration projects such as watershed and habitat 

enhancement. In the next before and after photos, you will see the 

Big Meadow Creek-Cookhouse Meadow restoration project. This 

deals with erosion control and shows how we, by engaging in these 
65 

activities, can partially address the Lake Tahoe total maximum 

daily load allocations adopted under the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act. 

The third set of before and after photos shows the Blackwood 

Creek Bridge replacement project. This shows that you can allow 

water from a creek to flow more freely underneath these structures, and it results in a reduction of fine sediment and nutrients, 

which would eventually flow into Lake Tahoe. 

And under the 2000 Act, we have been administering a variety 

of local erosion control grant programs. We offer to continue that 

administrative role for erosion control under S. 2724. 

The last set of photos here show before and after displays at the 

Apalachee erosion control project, which is one of some 120 such 

grants that we have been part of over the past 9 years. This project 

reduces the amount of erosion spreads, water flows and checks 

stormwaters by constructing a pipe outflow with a flared end section. 

As a result of these types of projects and other priority work conducted in the Lake Tahoe Basin, the rate of decline in water clarity 

of the lake is decreasing. Thousands of acres of forest land have 

been enhanced. Roads and highways across the basin have been 

improved to limit runoff, and the natural function of many miles 

of stream zones and riparian areas has been restored. 

We appreciate and embrace the roles assigned to Secretary 

Vilsack as we continue to complete ongoing and new restoration activities as well as strategically addressing new environmental challenges such as aquatic invasive species that threaten Lake Tahoe 

and surrounding waters. 

In conclusion, this bill would build upon the success of the past 

10 years. The Administration remains committed to restoring the 

health and resiliency of the Lake Tahoe Basin. We will continue to 

implement a program that serves the community, economy and the 

environment. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sherman follows:] 
66 
67 
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 
119 
120 
121 

Senator CARDIN [presiding]. Let me thank both of you for your 

testimony. And again, we apologize for the fact that as this hearing 

is going forward there are votes that are taking place on the Senate floor, and that is the reason why you see the Members coming 

in and out. So we appreciate your understanding and your patience 

as we move forward on this very important hearing. We do have 

a lot of witnesses, and we want to make sure that the record is 

complete. 

Mr. Silva, I want to ask you first, just if we could, does the Administration support the S. 2724, the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act, 

and S. 2739, the Puget Sound Recovery Act of 2009? We have specific bills that have been filed, so we are interested in whether the 

Administration supports these bills, feel that they can be improved 

or modified or want to express concerns. 

Mr. SILVA. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

We have looked at the bills that have come out. We understand 

they are still in process. We see some good things that we like. I 

mean, obviously, Lake Tahoe, I can tell you, I am from California. 

I have been there many times, and I agree with the Senator, it is 

a treasure there in California. 

And we do support, especially in Lake Tahoe, the items that have 

been discussed already at length. One component I think that we 

are very pleased about is that our understanding of the bill is it 

would incorporate TMDLs into the region as a tool to drive some 

of these needed improvements in the area, so we very much like 

that component of the bill. And I will just leave it at that. 

With respect to, I believe, the Puget Sound, we also—if I could, 

we also just have a draft right now at this point, and there are a 

couple of things that we like. I can tell you that we want to continue to working on the bill. There are some things that we see just 

in terms of working with the local governance and how EPA would 

work with the existing governance on the ground. 

But again, with respect to funding, we feel that that is obviously 

very necessary in the Puget Sound area. But again, we just want 

to continue working with you more on the governance part of the 

bill. 

Senator CARDIN. Let me follow up just on that. You mention 

Puget Sound. First of all, if there are specific suggestions you have, 

we just urge you to work with the Senators who are sponsoring 

these bills. The schedule here is unclear as to when we are likely 

to take up legislation, but we want to make sure that the Administration’s views are well known prior to our acting on these bills. So 

if you could work with the Senators involved so that we at least 

don’t have a slowdown because of drafting issues. 

Mr. SILVA. No, no at all. We would be very happy to continue 

working with you on that, on those issues. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

In regards to the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, do you 

see a benefit in the authorization of that initiative? 

Mr. SILVA. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I have Cam Davis here with 

me today. He’s a Senior Advisor to the Administrator for Great 

Lakes, and he could answer that question much better than I 

could, if he could, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. Certainly. 
122 

Mr. SILVA. Thank you. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Chairman Cardin. My name is Cameron 

Davis, Senior Adviser to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on Great 

Lakes issues. 

The Interagency Task Force was created by Executive Order several years ago and has been very good. It has been very functional. 

I think we would like to see the functionality of it preserved for 

purposes of Great Lakes decisionmaking. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

I want to go back to Puget Sound for one moment because I am 

concerned about the appropriated funds under S. 2739. Fifty percent go directly to the Puget Sound Partnership. Is there a concern 

as to whether there is sufficient accountability in how those Federal funds would be used? There is no specific oversight spelled out 

in the statute. If you are not prepared to answer that now, that is 

fine, but I would like you to be able to come back to this Committee 

in regards to whether there is adequate accountability in the appropriation of funds. 

Mr. SILVA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Overall as we look at all these 

great water bodies, as we see increased funding, that is something 

we are looking at in terms of having better coordination of these 

efforts and how the money is spent and tracking the funding. So 

we would be happy to do that. 

Senator CARDIN. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Sherman, the Federal efforts to restore Lake Tahoe began in 

a coordinated manner in 1997 following President Clinton’s Executive Order establishing the Lake Tahoe Federal Interagency Partnership legislation, including the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act and 

the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act provided additional support for Federal restoration efforts. 

What have been the key successes of that effort over the past 12 

years? And can we build on those successes as we look to reauthorize the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Senator, as I think a number of the earlier testimonies indicated, there has been significant progress made in 

terms of improving the clarity of the lake, the water quality of the 

lake, dealing with erosion control projects which cut down on sediments that were going into the lake. And we have done an enormous amount of work on the surrounding forest to try to reduce 

fuel buildup there, to increase the diversity and the health of the 

forest, all of which translates to helping water quality. 

But I think the important thing is we need to keep this effort 

going. This needs to be a long-term sustained effort. And I am 

hopeful that through this bill there will be adequate flexibility to 

address emerging or growing challenges as we go forward. 

But I think the structure of the bill and I think the past efforts 

that we had should serve this region well. The key problem we always have is having adequate resources to deal with this. And 

hopefully through these authorizations and subsequent appropriations the resources will be there to address these challenges. 

Senator CARDIN. There is no question that resources are a key 

issue. I can speak first-hand in regards to the Chesapeake Bay Program. I am wondering whether—the effort being made here on 

each on these great water bodies is critically important. Each one 
123 

is important to its region and has national significance. I certainly 

applaud the efforts being made to in some cases codify the Federal 

partnership, in other cases reauthorize and expand. 

Do we have any common themes that we should be looking to as 

we advance authorization for Federal partnerships with these programs? Some are requesting specific offices. Others are suggesting 

funding levels with more flexibility. Some have stronger expectation for enforcement than others, with giving tools for enforcement. 

Some just really want Federal money, I guess the image of having 

Federal legislation to protect the body of water. 

Are there some common elements that we should be working toward and establishing how the Federal Government participates in 

a significant body of water? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I can give you a couple of thoughts off the top of 

my head and follow it up with some written comments. I mean, one 

of the things that strikes me we need to really push with is collaboration. We have got to have collaboration with local stakeholders 

because with collaboration you can get the work done. You can 

avoid litigation and things like that. So I think collaboration is just 

essential. 

I think that coordination between the different levels of government is critical here. Lake Tahoe is a great example of how the 

Federal Government has worked with the States of Nevada and 

California and worked with local and regional entities to collectively make these things happen. 

So coordination and collaboration are important. Secretary 

Vilsack, as I mentioned in my testimony, has also talked about this 

all lands approach, at least from the Federal perspective. We can’t 

just focus on Federal land. We have to focus on the relationship of 

Federal land to private lands and to State lands. So the all lands 

approach is important. 

And I think, then, these issues protecting water bodies, at least 

from my perspective, often the link between forest health and protection of water quality has not always been there. I mean, but 

that is a critical link. If we have healthy forests, that goes a long 

way to protecting the water resources that we will need in this 

country. 

There are approximately 100 million people in the United States 

who get their water from the national forests. And if we have catastrophic fires on our national forest, or we have forests that are not 

productive, we will have severe water quality problems. 

So we have got to work very hard to protect the health of our 

forests, and that in turn obviously protects the clarity and the 

clean water nature that we are striving for. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Silva, do you want to add anything to that? 

Mr. SILVA. Yes. I just want to say in terms of these programs 

that we see—you see, most of them started at the National Estuary 

Program, you know, very, very localized. A lot of them, as you 

know, have multi-State jurisdictional issues. So a lot of them started really at the State level as local programs. 

I think as they developed and the Federal Government came in 

to support those efforts, and so certainly when the Federal Government comes in, we have to be cognizant of the fact that they have 

been there for a while. These programs have existed in many cases 
124 

for a number of years. And so when we come in—I mean, I think 

the Federal part of it is the coordination at the Federal level. Federal agencies are involved. With that hopefully comes funding that 

can be used at the ground level. 

I think once you get the funding, though, I think it is very important to establish good science and track the progress of those efforts; perhaps make adjustments as you are moving forward. 

As you know, on the Chesapeake Bay, one of the key things is 

regulation. I mean at some point, you have to say OK, we have got 

funding. We know what we have to do. Let’s go forward and do it. 

And sometimes it is not easy because you don’t have the right regulatory tools in place. 

But as I see it, I mean, all of these efforts, as I see it, have that 

in common. They start locally, the Federal Government comes in, 

provides assistance with funding. But again, once you get that 

funding, I think it is critical again to track the progress and really 

see how the funding is spent. And then if you are making progress, 

hopefully you can transfer it to other efforts in other parts of the 

country. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, one of the things I am going to ask that 

we work collectively on, and that is between our Committee and 

the Agency, to have expectations of what we expect in these programs starting at the first levels for Federal participation. 

I think, Mr. Sherman, when you say collaboration and coordination, I couldn’t agree with you more. I think back about the Chesapeake Bay and that its signature was that we had all levels of government. We had the private sector. We had all the stakeholders 

that were involved in the process. So there was a buy-in, basically, 

and an open process. 

I think all lands are important. I interpret that to mean that if 

you don’t have all of the watershed jurisdictions included in the 

program, then you really don’t have a comprehensive plan, and 

then I am not sure you are eligible for elevation for Federal partnership. So I think it needs to include all of the geographical areas 

that impact the watershed. 

I appreciate what you said about the forest lands. That is absolutely true in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The loss of the forest 

lands has been a huge problem, and the relationship between a 

healthy forest. I thought Senator Ensign’s point about Lake Tahoe 

was a very telling point as the forestry has changed. It has gotten 

thicker. Well, thicker didn’t necessarily mean better. So I think 

that is an important point. 

And then, Mr. Silva, I couldn’t agree with you more that you 

need to have accountability here somewhere. I mean, we are struggling with that in the Chesapeake Bay Program, as you know. And 

we appreciate the fact that the TMDL tool is being requested in 

Lake Tahoe. 

Mr. SILVA. Lake Tahoe. 

Senator CARDIN. That gives us at least a tool to be able to measure accountability and where we are heading. And of course in the 

Chesapeake Bay Program, we had that by court order, but we also 

had that as an effort in the restoration bill that has been filed by 

Senator Carper and myself and Senator Mikulski. 
125 

So I think we need to start looking at different levels and where, 

when you request Federal participation, whether it is the concentration of a Federal agency that will be responsible for that 

body of water, or whether it is Federal funding; there is an expectation that certain standards need to be met. And I think that 

might be helpful. Rather than having four or five different models 

out there, I think we can learn from what has been done in the 

past. 

So I would just urge us to try to put that together as we move 

forward with the different legislative approaches on either reauthorizing or establishing a Federal partnership with water bodies 

in this country, significant water bodies in this country. 

With that, thank you all very much. I appreciate your testimony. 

We are now going to go to our second panel, where we have 

many of the expertise in regards to the specific bodies of water that 

have been the subject of this hearing: Patrick Wright, who has already been introduced, the Executive Director of the California 

Tahoe Conservancy; David Dicks, who is the Executive Director of 

the Puget Sound Partnership; Alexander ‘‘Pete’’ Grannis, Commissioner, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; Debrah Marriott, the Executive Director of the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership; David Naftzger, Executive Director, 

Council of Great Lakes Governors; John Tauzel, Senior Associate 

Director of Public Policy, the New York Farm Bureau; and David 

Ullrich, Executive Director, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities 

Initiative. 

I think we are at the maximum size of a panel since the table 

would not hold more people. So we welcome you all here. Obviously, this is a very important hearing for the Committee, and we 

value your testimony, and we thank you very much for your patience in waiting for the panel to be called. 

I am going to ask that you speak in the order in which I introduced you. Your entire statements will be made part of the record. 

You may proceed as you wish, starting with Mr. Wright. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK WRIGHT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

CALIFORNIA TAHOE CONSERVANCY 

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you, Senator Cardin, for inviting me here 

today to speak on behalf of the Lake Tahoe community. And in particular I want to thank Senators Boxer, Reid, Feinstein and Ensign 

for their strong bipartisan support in moving the Tahoe bill forward. 

Clearly, like many of the other water bodies you are hearing 

from today, Lake Tahoe needs no introduction. It is truly one of the 

great water bodies of both the Nation and the world. But as you 

have heard repeatedly this morning, it has had its fair share of 

challenges, from runoff that clouds its fabled lake clarity to overstocked forests that threaten local communities. 

And now we are faced with a brand new set of challenges in the 

basin, including the potentially devastating impact of aquatic 

invasive species and the already well documented impacts of climate change in the basin. 

Fortunately, however, we are beginning to build a very strong 

track record in the basin in addressing these issues, and the Lake 
126 

Tahoe Restoration Act is the key to building upon that success. As 

my written testimony describes in more detail, we have come a 

long way in the 10 years since the first Lake Tahoe Restoration Act 

was authorized in 2000. 

First, we have built a very strong bipartisan coalition at the 

local, State and Federal levels in support of our restoration plan. 

Second, we have managed to secure significant levels of non-Federal money. Together, State, local and even private investments 

have totaled over $1 billion to match Federal levels of spending 

over the last decade. 

And third, we have developed a detailed, comprehensive restoration plan backed by very highly advanced scientific tools, driven by 

the EPA’s TMDL process, to pinpoint the key causes that affect 

lake clarity in the basin and the highest priority projects that will 

help turn the corner. 

And finally and most important, we are getting projects done on 

the ground, and in doing so have managed to stabilize lake clarity 

in recent years after decades of fairly steep declines. 

The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act we hope will provide the Federal leadership and funding to maintain the strong partnership and 

the bipartisan support behind it. It authorizes $415 million for our 

highest priority projects. 

Three Federal agencies are specifically singled out in the bill. 

The Forest Service, as the owner of over 75 percent of the land in 

the basin, has a special role in maintaining the health of its forests. 

U.S. EPA has a key role, first in overseeing the basin’s water 

quality plan, one of the most ambitious and successful in the Nation. And the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for its oversight of the 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s highly, highly important and aggressive effort to protect the basin against the spread of aquatic 

invasive species. 

So in summary, the Tahoe Basin has all of those key elements 

that you mentioned that make these large scale restoration projects 

a success. We have a collaborative effort. We have good coordination among all the State, Federal and local agencies. We have a 

world class science program. We have a planning and tracking system that provides the accountability that all of our funders are 

looking for. And we have broad based public support in the basin. 

And finally, I want to point out that the Lake Tahoe Restoration 

Act is not just an environmental bill. It is a jobs bill. It is an opportunity to not only protect an irreplaceable national asset, but to 

launch a new generation of projects that will be a model for sustainable development in an area that has been hit very hard by the 

recession. This bill is essential, therefore, to maintain the health of 

both the environment and the economy of the Lake Tahoe Basin. 

And finally, I want to add, in response to Senator Boxer’s very 

gracious comments and introduction, that like many of my colleagues here, I do have a great job, and I have a great job because 

of the incredible partnership that we have built in the Tahoe Basin 

to move this program forward. I am joined here today, for example, 

by Joanne Marchetta, the Executive Director of the Tahoe Regional 

Planning Agency, which was the Nation’s first bi-State planning 

agency. In fact, it was founded on the very concept of bringing to-
127 

gether a broad array of Federal agencies, two States, five counties, 

dozens of local jurisdictions who normally don’t see eye to eye on 

anything, to come together in support of a comprehensive plan to 

protect this national treasure. 

So I am delighted to be here on behalf of the whole Tahoe community to express our very strong support and appreciate your 

leadership in moving the bill forward. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:] 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 

Senator CARDIN. Well, we thank you very much for your testimony. And without objection, we are going to enter into the record 

letters and statements of support from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Tahoe Fire Chiefs, the League to Save Lake Tahoe, 

Governor Schwarzenegger, and Senator John J. Lee, Nevada Senate. 

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

Senator CARDIN. With that, we will go to Mr. Dicks. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID DICKS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Nice to see you. 

My name is David Dicks. I am the Executive Director of the 

Puget Sound Partnership, a State agency formed in 2007 explicitly 

to try to restore and protect Puget Sound and get it back in good 

shape by 2020. 

Senator Cantwell I want to thank especially, and I just want to 

point out that I think she has covered most of the beauty of Puget 

Sound, obviously, one of the great water bodies. I hope we are not 

starting a competition here between all these great places. 

Senator CARDIN. Competition is good. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DICKS. My in-laws have a cabin in Truckee near Lake Tahoe, 

so they are all important, and I hope we, as you were alluding to, 

Senator, that we focus on the commonalities in some cases and 

allow for the varying ability in the various places as we go forward 

with all of these proposals. 

As you know, the Puget Sound Recovery Act is before this Committee, and I want to quickly kind of run through why I think this 

is important for Puget Sound and what we are hoping to achieve 

with it. 

Importantly for us, we have done a lot of work that is similar to 

the great work you have done in the Chesapeake Bay in the last 

few years. Governor Gregoire, who is my boss, when she first came 

into office in 2005 looked around and basically realized that the 

Puget Sound effort was not going well. We had listed species of 

salmon, orca whales, now rockfish and other important species 

being listed, and there was a huge amount of concern that we simply weren’t going to get to the finish line with Puget Sound. There 

was a real risk that we could lose it. 

She appointed a blue ribbon panel which as chaired by Bill 

Ruckelshaus, who basically came to two fundamental conclusions. 

The first was that the Sound was in significant decline. And the 

second was that we were not operating at the right scale to deal 

with it. That has now essentially been remedied with the creation 

of the Puget Sound Partnership. 

In 2 and a half years, we have done a couple of things that I 

think are important to point out. The first one is we have developed a single, unified, comprehensive plan that has priorities, that 

has very significant science underpinning. And it tries to do essentially four things. 

The first is to restore places where we can truly recreate ecosystem function. That is kind of a wonky way of saying bigger 

places or linked projects where we can really make a difference. We 
137 

need to get away from random acts of restoration and instead focus 

on very concrete things that we know scientifically will make a big 

difference. A lot of that is going on. The Recovery Act has done a 

ton on that; $160 million into Puget Sound, for example, through 

the stimulus package, which has been incredible. 

The second major strategy is to protect the best remaining places 

that are left in Puget Sound. Puget Sound has a lot of variability. 

It is not monolithic. Some places are extremely healthy. Other 

places are extremely unhealthy. To make sure that we don’t lose 

any more ground we have to protect the best remaining places. 

The third big strategy in the action agenda is to stop as much 

additional contamination from getting into the water in the first 

place. We have done a lot with clean ups through the CERCLA and 

our State Superfund law, but we really need to get upstream and 

start dealing with stormwater and other runoff in a very meaningful way. That is crucial. 

And the fourth piece of the puzzle is to what we loosely call fix 

the system. In other words, try to align all the governmental actors—in our case, that involves about 2,500 jurisdictions—around 

the plan. We think that the concept of getting coordinated in a generic sense is not workable. We hope that with the plan being in 

existence, ranked prioritized lists of specific projects and policies, 

we can get the individual agencies to come, take their piece of the 

puzzle, and go off in an autonomous way, but all linked to one unified plan. That is I think the trick of the action agenda. 

The last piece here, two quick other points. The other factor 

which you mentioned vis-a`-vis the accountability piece. We are in 

the process of building. We learned a lot from your guys at Lake 

Tahoe, by the way. What we are hoping is to be the best in class 

accountability and performance management system. That has two 

components to it. 

The first is we need to be able to account for the money that is 

being spent, to make sure that the people signing up to do a project 

actually do it. That is part one. And more importantly in some 

ways are the projects themselves making a difference to improve 

the quality of the Sound. That latter piece involves monitoring and 

adaptive management. That is a crucial factor and what we are 

trying to really push forward with the Puget Sound Partnership. 

The final piece, and I think Administrator Jackson was out in 

the region a couple weeks ago and made this point I think quite 

strongly. We have got to refigure out a way to engage the public 

in a meaningful way. We have done a lot on this. One of the important things about the action agenda is that the entire region 

bought off on it on the specific ranked list of priorities, which is 

pretty remarkable because in some cases people said, you know 

what? That other project in your area is more important than my 

project. That is the kind of dynamic that we have been able to create, and we hope to continue by getting the public even more engaged in their daily lives to protect Puget Sound. 

So with that, I would be glad to take any questions, and I thank 

you for holding this hearing and look forward to working with you 

on our bill and all the other important bills around the country. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dicks follows:] 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 

Senator CARDIN. Well, we thank you for your testimony. 

Without objection, Senator Gillibrand’s opening statement will be 

included in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Gillibrand follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Thank you, Chairman Cardin, for holding this very important hearing and for the 

opportunity to speak on these issues that are so important to my home State. 

I am also very thankful to have New York so well represented on today’s witness 

list. 

First I want to recognize the Commissioner of New York State’s Department of 

Environmental Conservation—Alexander Grannis. I also want to welcome another 

New Yorker, John Tauzel, Senior Associate Director of Public Policy for the New 

York Farm Bureau. 

I want to thank both of you—and all of our witnesses—for being here today to 

share your expert testimony on these critical issues. 

Mr. Chairman, today’s hearing is but a snapshot of some of America’s greatest 

natural resources. As Senator from the State of New York, I am proud to represent 

some of the Nation’s premier water bodies—areas not just known for their natural 

beauty, but for their critical economic importance to our regions and the country. 

With Lake Erie and Lake Ontario on our western border, the St. Lawrence River 

to the north, Lake Champlain, the Hudson River, the Finger Lakes, the Susquehanna and Delaware River Basins, Long Island Sound and the Atlantic Ocean along 

our South Shore—New York’s water resources have been critical for over four centuries, when Henry Hudson first sailed north on the waterway that now bears his 

name. 

Today I would like to highlight one of these many important water bodies—the 

Long Island Sound. The Long Island Sound is home to more than 8 million coastal 

residents, and more than 20 million live within 50 miles. The Sound contributes 

more than $5.5 billion to the region’s economy from boating, sport and commercial 

fishing, to recreation and tourism. 

From Great Neck to Greenport, the communities along the Long Island Sound 

have for centuries relied on its waters as a major source of economic opportunity— 

with rich stocks of fish like flounder and striped bass, as well as scallops, lobster 

and of course oysters—spurring growth across Long Island. 

Development in the region removed much of the natural barriers, and pollution 

and untreated wastewater further debilitated the Sound—causing enormous environmental and economic effects on the Sound and coastal communities. 

Recognizing the need to act to restore the Sound, New York and Connecticut, in 

coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency, have been working for 

years on efforts to reduce the nutrient load into the Sound and remediate some of 

the legacy pollutants that have made their way into its sediments. 

In addition, legislation advanced by this body has provided critical resources for 

economically distressed communities along the Sound to remediate shorelines and 

repair sewage treatment plants. 

The Long Island Sound Restoration Act, which is up for reauthorization this year, 

has been a vital tool in reducing nitrogen loads in the Sound. 

A companion program authorized under the Long Island Sound Stewardship Act 

provides local stakeholders resources to restore the Sound while enhancing public 

access, using targeted efforts to revitalize shoreline habitats. 

This program truly demonstrates the teamwork needed to advance restoration of 

the Sound with partnerships at every level of government as well as local community organizations, colleges and universities, conservation groups, fishermen, the 

business community and landowners. 

Working with my fellow Long Island Sound Senators I am advancing legislation 

that would reauthorize these two important programs an additional 5 years at their 

current authorization levels. 

The Long Island Sound Restoration and Stewardship Act would simply take these 

two companion programs—each with their own specific mission, but shared goals— 

and synthesize their efforts into a single authorization. 

This non-controversial measure will build on the work over the last two decades 

to restore Long Island Sound for the benefit of millions of Americans and revitalize 

the environment and economy of this region. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to discuss my proposed legislation 

and the importance of restoring Long Island Sound. 
147 

Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. And to Mr. Grannis, you noticed Senator 

Gillibrand was here earlier. She had a conflict at this particular 

moment but wanted very much to extend her greetings to you. She 

is, of course, our leader on the Long Island Sound issues. We are 

glad to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER B. ‘‘PETE’’ GRANNIS, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 

Mr. GRANNIS. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Well, from the West to the East, on behalf of Governor Paterson, 

I am very pleased to be here today. I could be talking about our 

two Great Lakes or the headwaters of the Susquehanna River, the 

Delaware River. I know you are well aware of that, our great Hudson River or Lake Champlain, which is one of the larger inland waters in the country. But I am here today to talk about Long Island 

Sound, and I know that Senator Gillibrand was talking about—and 

that is what her legislation would address. 

So I want to just very quickly note the interactions and the actions between New York and our partner States—Connecticut most 

particularly—and the EPA and working on Long Island Sound. The 

achievements we have made to date have occurred under the auspices of the Long Island Sound Study, which is a 24-year cooperative project that is part of the National Estuary Program. 

The study culminated with approval of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Long Island Sound, which is 

a very important blueprint to improve the health of this very vital 

estuary. The plan identified seven priority areas for implementation in the Sound: low-dissolved oxygen, toxic contamination, 

pathogens, floatable debris, health and living resources and their 

habitats, land use, and public outreach and involvement. 

As one of the key actions of the plan, municipalities bordering 

the Sound must upgrade their wastewater treatment facilities to 

eliminate the nitrogen discharges which cause hypoxia and impair 

the feeding, reproduction and growth of aquatic life in the Sound. 

Contaminated sediments both impair resources and make it more 

difficult to dispose of dredged material from the Sound. The Long 

Island Sound beaches are periodically closed. They make the news 

all the time, along with a great number of shellfish beds which also 

must be closed when pathogen levels exceed healthy levels. 

New York State and county and local governments anticipate 

spending an estimated $1.5 billion on wastewater treatment upgrades by 2017 in addition to the millions already spent. State and 

local funds are being used to restore aquatic habitats, control nonpoint sources of pollution, acquire valuable open spaces, and provide public access and undertake many other essential projects. 

But we can’t do this alone, Senator. We appreciate our partnerships with the U.S. EPA, other Federal agencies, our counterparts 

in Connecticut, local governments, not for profit organizations, and 

as you can well imagine, a very committed citizenry. 

In 2000 Congress approved the Long Island Sound Restoration 

Act—these are all acronyms, LISRA—so that the Federal Government could share in New York’s and Connecticut’s commitment 
148 

that the Sound Restoration Act funds be used for a wide variety 

of projects, including habitat protection and restoration, sewage 

treatment plant upgrades, program management and monitoring, 

education, research and special projects. 

We obviously greatly appreciate the commitment Congress has 

demonstrated to the Sound and particularly the advocacy of 

Congressmembers Israel, Bishop and Lowey, and our two great 

Senators, Senator Schumer and Senator Gillibrand. But without 

continued congressional advocacy for this important estuary, we 

feel that the efforts to restore the Sound will continue to limp 

along. 

The interests I have raised, while important, are subsumed by 

the critical issue of sea level rise, as has been discussed earlier, 

and its potential impacts on Long Island Sound’s natural resources, 

water supplies and communities. In addition to working to reduce 

the level of greenhouse gases that are driving climate change, actions are needed to address the likely impacts of sea level rise on 

sensitive communities, particularly those in the Sound’s watershed 

communities. Obviously, there are major consequences for people 

living in the watersheds and on the borders of Long Island Sound 

because of the impacts of sea level rise in the long run. 

We need Federal support for wastewater treatment upgrades to 

reduce discharges to the Sound. It is also critically important to address stormwater discharges that have resulted in the closures of 

shellfish beds and beaches, encourages the spread of invasive species, and increases suspended solids in the water. 

We also need Federal help to restore habitats in this biologically 

important region, including tidal and freshwater wetlands, shellfish 

spawner sanctuaries, and to mitigate barriers to fish passage. And 

also we have the same problems, I think there is a lot of common 

interest here in invasives, which are running rampant across our 

State, as they are in every other jurisdiction that is represented 

here. 

Finally, I just want to mention the Restoration Act’s sister statute, which is the Long Island Sound Stewardship Act. While the 

Restoration Act was enacted to identify, protect and enhance special places around Long Island Sound, the Stewardship Act acknowledges the necessity of a Federal role in protecting habitats 

through the Sound. And so to ensure public access to the Sound, 

both these Acts are important because they compete for Federal 

funding. 

And so we suggest that a single, comprehensive funding source 

for all Long Island Sound-related projects would be an ideal solution. So New York strongly supports the legislation authored by 

Senator Gillibrand to fold the Stewardship Act into the Restoration 

Act. 

Due to the fiscal constraints facing New York, and I imagine 

every other jurisdiction represented today and across the country, 

I strongly urge the Senate to consider increasing the current Federal 50-50 match for Long Island Sound projects to a 75-25 match, 

or to be very bold, to remove the match requirement entirely for 

a short period of time. We are strapped as every other State is, and 

the inability to muster the match requirements limits our ability 

to move forward with Federal projects. And so relief of some type, 
149 

in the short term at least, would be very beneficial for our ongoing 

efforts. 

We are at a crossroads with the Sound. Obviously, we have a 

chance to move forward. We have some very difficult issues, and 

we are looking forward to a strong partnership not only with you, 

Senator and the Members of Congress, but our partners at EPA 

and in Connecticut, and we thank you for this opportunity to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grannis follows:] 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. 

I will turn to Senator Merkley to introduce our next witness. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 

It is my pleasure to introduce Debrah Marriott to the Committee 

today. Ms. Marriott is the Executive Director of the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership, an organization that is pursuing a 

fully collaborative and voluntary approach to restoring one of our 

country’s great watersheds. The Partnership includes 28 cities, 

nine counties in the States of Oregon and Washington, as well as 

other private and public stakeholders ranging from ports to the 

pulp and paper industry, to farmers and other landowners. 

They developed a comprehensive plan for restoring habitat and 

reducing toxic pollution that includes activities ranging from improved monitoring to public education to working with farmers to 

help safely dispose of pesticides they don’t need. 

While their work has focused on the Lower Columbia, Ms. Marriott has expertise on the entire basin, and her collaborative approach serves as a model not just for the restoration of the Columbia Basin, but I think for watersheds across the Nation. 

It is great to have you here. 

Ms. MARRIOTT. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF DEBRAH MARRIOTT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY PARTNERSHIP 

Ms. MARRIOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Senator Merkley. 

My name is Debrah Marriott. I am here today representing the 

Columbia Basin, and I thank you very much for this opportunity. 

This bill does recognize the Columbia Basin as one of the Nation’s great water bodies. It opens the path finally to reduced toxic 

contamination, improved ecosystem conditions, provide significant 

jobs, and begin long-term improvements to public health and economic stability. 

As you have heard, the Columbia is a significant water body to 

the Nation. Eight million people live here. Over 2,000 species make 

their home there. It provides power to over 75 percent of the 

Northwest. Its farm and ranch land provide sales exceeding $10 

billion, and it carries cargo worth $13 billion annually. Native 

American tribes have gained their sustenance by it for over 10,000 

years. 

The Columbia is degraded from the Canadian border to the Pacific Ocean. One hundred percent of the main stem Columbia has 

been listed as impaired. Temperature and dissolved gas exceed safe 

levels for species. More than half of the wetlands in the lower river 

have been lost. More than 20 species of salmon are listed as threatened or endangered. And toxics banned in the 1970s, as you heard, 

are still present in fish tissue, water and sediment. 

Contaminants and flame retardants in pharmaceuticals are causing male fish to morph to females within their life cycle. Contaminants have impaired the reproductive organs of male river otters, 

and we have the largest clean up in the world at Hanford. 

Contaminants that start up in the basin are deposited in the 

lower river, putting ports at risk. The loss of fish has decimated 

our commercial fishing industry, dropping from $41 million in per-
162 

sonal income in 1980 to less than $4 million by 1998. And as you 

heard, Columbia River tribal people eat 10 times more fish than 

other populations. 

We have conducted many one-time studies. We know the problems. We have significant snapshots in time. The planning has 

been done. Our management plan, the EPA toxics reduction plan, 

USGS work, the biological opinion, and the recovery modules and 

plans all indicate that restoring habitat and reducing toxics are 

paramount. 

We have made progress. In the lower river we have restored almost 16,000 acres of habitat, nearly half of what we lost. We have 

developed extensive reporting systems and accountability systems 

to EPA as the National Estuary Program, with reports annually on 

our environmental progress and our fiscal accountabilities. 

The problems are big. They are the results of hundreds of different sources and hundreds of different activities over a very long 

time, and they move through the entire system. They can’t be corrected in a 1- or 2-year cycle. The States have done exceptional 

work within their States and on our tributaries, but the main stem 

investment is woefully short given the magnitude of the problems. 

Despite all this, there is no sustained monitoring on the main 

stem and no concerted toxic reduction efforts. In fact, in the past 

15 years as we have learned more about the extent of the problem, 

we have actually invested less, and now only one site on the main 

stem is monitored continually. 

With this bill and subsequent appropriations we would collect 

and analyze data for a full suite of contaminants at the same locations at regular intervals over time. We would expand agricultural 

toxic reduction work with farmers, pesticide takeback programs, 

and mercury collection events, especially on tribal lands. 

We would collect unused pharmaceuticals to keep them out of the 

water and out of the hands of teens. We would develop consumer 

education, especially for at-risk populations. And we would expand 

the scientific base upon which we prioritize habitat restoration. 

This work secures our region. It keeps the ports operational. For 

every $2.5 million in restoration, we create 55 jobs from construction workers for culvert replacement to foresters. It aids farmers, 

and it opens markets for local supplies and services, and we are 

ready to go. 

The Columbia is a national priority. The lower river is an estuary of national significance and the entire basin is now a great 

water body. And as the Senator said, we are the only great water 

body to receive no appropriations pursuant to this designation. 

This authorization meets five Federal priorities, tribal needs and 

State goals. We have extended the National Estuary Program approach of gathering diverse interests, using science, and defining 

actions to all the geographies in the basin and to hundreds of 

stakeholders because our system, like all systems, does not end at 

a dam. 

Whether we intended to or not, we created this, the good, the bad 

and the really bad. And the good news in that is we can reverse 

those trends. 
163 

I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak here today, 

and again I thank Senator Merkley for his leadership in this. And 

I would be happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Marriott follows:] 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. 

We will now turn to Mr. Naftzger. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID NAFTZGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

COUNCIL OF GREAT LAKES GOVERNORS 

Mr. NAFTZGER. Thank you, Chairman Cardin and members of 

the Committee. I am David Naftzger, Executive Director of the 

Council of Great Lakes Governors, which is a partnership of the 

Governors from each of the Great Lakes States: Illinois, Indiana, 

Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The council is led by our two co-chairs, Wisconsin Governor 

Jim Doyle and Ohio Governor Ted Strickland. 

Through the council, the Governors and the Premiers from Ontario and Quebec work together to promote our economy and advance our region’s economic health. I appreciate the opportunity to 

submit the testimony today. 

The Great Lakes are a unique treasure of international significance. They contain approximately 20 percent of the world’s surface 

fresh water and 95 percent of North America’s. More than 35 million Americans rely on the waters of the Great Lakes Basin. 

Our region’s economy and indeed our nations depend on the 

Great Lakes. Overall, the region generates nearly 30 percent of our 

Nation’s gross domestic product and about 60 percent of all U.S. 

manufacturing. The Great Lakes are shared by two nations, eight 

States and two Provinces, thousands of municipal governments, as 

well as tribes and First Nations. 

The Great Lakes States have a longstanding and sustained commitment to protecting and restoring our Great Lakes. The States 

continue to invest heavily and manage many different programs toward this objective. Of course, other governments and partners are 

working similarly. 

Unfortunately, our success is incomplete, and our waters remain 

vulnerable. It is clear that yesterday’s tools are not well suited to 

tackle today’s challenges. And even when we have the right tools, 

too frequently we lack the resources to use them effectively. As a 

result, our environment suffers, our economy suffers, and we suffer. 

However, recent work has created an opportunity to accelerate 

our efforts. The Governors successfully developed the Great Lakes 

Compact and now serve on its council. Congressional support is 

recognized and appreciated. 

Separately, at the request of Congress, the Governors developed 

priorities to broadly protect and restore the Great Lakes. Following 

that, the President issued an Executive Order which began an historic effort to develop a comprehensive restoration strategy. 

More than 1,500 representatives of governments, stakeholder 

groups and citizens participated in this effort. And most recently, 

we have accelerated our work with the support of President 

Obama’s Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. This program has delivered unprecedented funding in addition to national programs 

like the Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund. 

In sum, our region has protection and restoration priorities that 

we all agree on, a consensus strategy, and significant and recent 

progress to build on. But if we are able to achieve our goals, we 

have to redouble our efforts broadly and across many programs. A 
177 

large and sustained Federal investment in the Great Lakes is needed, and we must coordinate our work more effectively. 

Clearly, the Great Lakes are unique and require distinct management structures. To be most successful, any future Great Lakes 

restoration program must encompass several overarching principles. First, ensure that all funded activities help implement the 

region’s restoration strategy. Second, coordinate the efforts of the 

many government and non-governmental entities and recognize the 

leadership role of the Governors in defining State and regional priorities. 

Next, minimize bureaucracy and allow efforts to be directed toward protection and restoration rather than process and paperwork. And to the greatest extent possible, funding should be distributed via block grants or otherwise coordinated in large grants 

to improve efficiency. 

And last, adopt alternatives to non-Federal match requirements 

with the flexibility to recognize the ongoing and significant investments by States, other governments, and stakeholders. 

Over the past several months, we have worked collaboratively 

with representatives from Congress, local and tribal governments, 

and non-governmental organizations to develop a framework embodying these principles. In particular, we appreciate the leadership of Senator Levin and Senator Voinovich, and my colleague, 

David Ullrich, will be describing the framework in more detail. 

In coming months, we look forward to working with you toward 

our shared goals: a revitalized natural environment and reinvigorated economic assets that can power us into the future, just as 

they powered our past. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to submit the testimony. I 

look forward to continuing to work together. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Naftzger follows:] 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Tauzel. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. TAUZEL, SENIOR ASSOCIATE 

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC POLICY, NEW YORK FARM BUREAU 

Mr. TAUZEL. Yes, good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

so much for the opportunity to be here today, and thank you to the 

members of the Committee as well. 

I would also like to extend a thank you to Senator Gillibrand for 

her strong work in representing our State, and recognize Commissioner Grannis, who we have a strong ongoing discussion with regarding environmental issues. 

I am so happy to be here to represent the 35,000 farm families 

of New York State. As many of you have discussed and as many 

panelists have discussed, agriculture is a critical component of any 

part of the Great Lakes and the great bodies of water that are 

being discussed today by the Committee. 

In New York, that is certainly true. In the Great Lakes Basin we 

have over 17,000 family farms. Almost half of the farms in New 

York State are located in the Great Lakes Basin. On Long Island 

Sound, Suffolk County is our largest agricultural county by value. 

Suffolk County represents the eastern end of Long Island. 

Agriculture has a role to play, and farmers are excited to help 

work on water quality issues. Water quality is critical. As you 

know, it is the lifeblood of New York agriculture and of agriculture 

in general, and farmers are truly committed to water quality. 

Unfortunately, sometimes that runs into the fact that farming is 

a business. Farmers are faced with economic realities of making 

decision to protect water quality while making sure their businesses are sustainable over the long term. 

Today, I would like to talk to you about a model that works in 

New York called the agricultural environmental management 

model. The Under Secretary talked a lot about two approaches: collaboration and coordination, and that is really what AEM was set 

up to do. Working through the New York State Soil and Water 

Conservation Committee, local soil and water districts, the New 

York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, the New York 

State Department of Environmental Conservation, and our Federal 

partners, USDA NRCS, farmers have for the past 10 years developed a unique model that focuses on solving local issues and addressing local concerns. By local, I mean farm site specific. 

We have over 12,000 farms in the program, roughly one-third of 

the farms in New York. We focused on dairy and are expanding to 

focus on areas like equine, wineries and our fruit and vegetable 

farmers. 

When I talk about farm specific focus, that is where our members 

have experienced the most benefit in getting to environmental benefits. On my home farm we established nutrient management plans 

which really help our farm to better utilize the nutrients available 

to us and also enhanced buffer strips to make sure that—and in 

fact, our farm is in the Chesapeake’s—to make sure we are doing 

the best we can to protect the water. 

AEM works. We know it works. In places where this voluntary, 

incentive based approach has been utilized, we have seen proven 
188 

monitored results of reductions in phosphorus. It also has worked 

over the long term. Farms are a long-term investment. My family 

has for over 80 years been involved in agriculture. As many in this 

room know, water quality is a long-term investment as well. We 

will see progression over the long term. 

AEM and a voluntary incentive based approach that achieves 

participant buy-in helps establish this long-term goal. Farms are 

now buying into water quality. They are working hard to protect 

that water quality. 

That helps regulators because Commissioner Grannis can focus 

on some of the larger issues from a DEC perspective, rather than 

agriculture, and that has been successful. 

How can the Federal Government continue to help these farms? 

Well, the good news is you have done a great job already. The farm 

bill programs that you have established, like EQIP, WHIP, AMA, 

have been really tremendous to help agriculture. The Conservation 

Innovation Grant Program that you created has helped establish 

brand new innovative ways to push our boundaries and push the 

boundaries on farm environmental management. 

I will say, one of the conversations and one of the points that 

came up earlier was this concept of regulation. I am not going to 

say that all regulation is bad. Certainly, certain regulations are 

needed. Our concern is just as environmental improvement is really best targeted on the local level, environmental regulation should 

also be targeted on the local level. There are significant tools out 

there that have already been established on the Federal level. Now, 

we recommend that the States really have that authority to then 

utilize those tools to move forward with that issue. 

One-size-fits-all does not work, and from our personal experience 

dealing with the CAFO program established by Federal regulation, 

we have seen what Federal regulation can do. It does not take into 

account the unique nature of agriculture in all segments of the 

country. In fact, if our farms had not had a strong history of working for agriculture in the past and working for water quality improvement in the past, the current proposal would have stopped agriculture and unfortunately would have also stopped our DEC 

from—we believe would have stopped our DEC as well from administering other important programs. 

With that in mind, I will just mention three other points to you. 

Forty cents per gallon, that is the amount of loss that every farmer 

took in New York State this year on the gallons of milk they produced; 35,7000 acres, that is the total number of acres in Suffolk 

County keeping—the total number of agricultural acres left in Suffolk County on Long Island holding back blacktop land; and $37 

million, that is green infrastructure investments—$37 million is 

the amount of land that we—I am sorry—the requests that farmers 

had to EQIP programs this year that were not funded in New York. 

Again, thank you for your time today. I appreciate all the opportunity today and look forward to answering any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tauzel follows:] 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you. I think the view from the agricultural community is extremely important in this debate, so thank 

you for being here. 

Mr. Ullrich. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID A. ULLRICH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

GREAT LAKES AND ST. LAWRENCE CITIES INITIATIVE 

Mr. ULLRICH. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin, Senator 

Klobuchar, Senator Merkley. I appreciate the opportunity and your 

willingness to hear from local government as well today. 

I am Executive Director of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence 

Cities Initiative, which is a group of 70 United States and Canadian cities from across the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence. We represent about 13 million people in our cities. I am very happy to 

have our Chairman, Mayor George Heartwell of Grand Rapids, 

Michigan, here with me today as well. In addition to those responsibilities, I serve as the U.S. Section Chair on the Great Lakes 

Fishery Commission. 

We in the Great Lakes community are extremely excited about 

this concept of great waters legislation where we can look across 

the country at the tremendous resource we have in our waters and 

figure how to do a much better job of protecting and restoring it 

long term into the future. 

Senator, your earlier question about common elements struck me 

as I was listening to this panel and the other one, is that a tremendous amount of work has gone on already and progress has been 

made, but the magnitude and complexity of these resources, and 

the complexity of the problems we are dealing with, continue to increase the challenges that we have. 

We all know there is not an unlimited amount of money to deal 

with this, so we have got to be looking at other ways to improve 

the way that we do business. I think a lot of good work has been 

done, but we can do better. 

As Mr. Naftzger mentioned, we have been working quite heavily 

lately on trying to see if there are ways we can streamline and improve the effectiveness of the management of the resources that we 

have and increase and improve the collaboration and cooperation. 

The spirit is there, but making it a reality is the real challenge 

that we face. 

Basically, the idea that we have come up with is a two-tiered 

management system with an added element in terms of having a 

good, tight, clear plan to improve the accountability and responsibility associated with utilizing the Federal, State and local resources, as well as achieving the results. 

The first tier would be what we would call a leadership council 

that would essentially take the political leadership at the Federal, 

State, local and tribal level, basically working with the number of 

our States with eight Governors, but also having eight Mayors, 

eight tribal leaders, and eight leaders of Federal agencies. This 

council would serve as the overall policy directors, setting goals and 

objectives, setting the priorities, and basically giving the battle 

charge on an annual basis. 

We would also have observers from the commissions that oversee 

the work, Great Lakes Commission, International Joint Commis-
202 

sion and also the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. And we think 

we should invite our good neighbors from Canada to sit in on this 

as well. So with this overall policy-setting, and we would hope we 

could get a significant number of that political leadership every 

year together, and to really give the direction to the career staff to 

get out and get the job done. 

The second tier would be a management committee that essentially would have one representative of each of those entities that 

is on the leadership council. Plus, here is where we would bring in 

the agricultural community, the industrial community, the environmental community to, on a more frequent basis, be monitoring the 

work that is being done, resolving disputes, basically pushing, 

pushing, pushing on more implementation and more action. That 

is what we really need to have happen, I think, at all of these resources, I know in the Great Lakes area specifically. 

In both of these bodies, speaking of leadership, we do need leadership. We think the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is in 

the best position to provide that kind of comprehensive chairing of 

both the leadership council and the management committee that 

we would have. They have a broad range of responsibility, and I 

think we are all prepared to rally around the kind of leadership 

that they have been showing recently with the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. So we think those two elements are essential. 

The third thing is really to have some clarity in a plan where you 

can go to it and you know who is responsible to do what by when, 

and that we can have accountability to one another. We can have 

accountability to Congress for the money that is being provided, 

and even more importantly, accountability to the broader public 

that is expecting us to do the kind of job that needs to be done on 

this. 

So with all of these great waters, we are at a critical point. There 

are tremendous opportunities to improve in the future, and these 

are just a few ideas to work with. 

Thank you again for hearing me out. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ullrich follows:] 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank all of you for your testimony. 

It is my intention to call on Senator Merkley first, then Senator 

Klobuchar. Senator Klobuchar is one of our leaders on CanadianAmerican relations, so I am sure she can help us with the Great 

Lakes. 

Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 

And thank you so much, Debrah, for your testimony today and 

for all the work you have done to coordinate efforts to improve the 

health of the river system. 

I grew up sailing and swimming in the Columbia and in the Willamette, and I had no idea of the challenges that the river system 

was encountering. In that regard, in your testimony you mention 

an effort to clean up a particular tributary, that a lot of work was 

done for habitat restoration. Fish didn’t return because of the toxic 

contamination that was later discovered. Can you tell us a little bit 

more about that example and the insights that come from that? 

Ms. MARRIOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Merkley. 

Yes, there is a tributary to the north of the Columbia where millions of dollars were invested in habitat to restore the threatened 

and endangered species, and the fish did not return as expected. 

When they did finally invest in toxics monitoring, they found significant contamination in the fish and in the sediments where the 

habitat was. 

What this speaks to is the strong need to make sure that we are 

measuring for toxics in the water and fish and sediment as we are 

restoring habitat, and that particular activity has not been active 

and fully funded on the Columbia. 

Senator MERKLEY. Do you know what the source of that particular toxic contamination was on that tributary? 

Ms. MARRIOTT. Largely DDTs and new pesticides in fertilizers 

being used, runoff from numerous uses with various contaminants. 

The exact impacts are still being studied. 

Senator MERKLEY. Well, turning to DDT, it remains persistent in 

the river system despite that fact it was banned some time ago. 

How do we go about addressing a chemical that we are no longer 

putting in the river, but are there things that can be done to diminish its impact on the river system? 

Ms. MARRIOTT. Mr. Chairman, Senator Merkley, there are indeed 

things that we can do. Of course, clean up of small sites would be 

one of the first things we would look to do. Also, pesticide collection 

sites are turning out to be very, very helpful. 

EPA has held a few collection sites in the Dalles and a few other 

locations above Bonneville Dam, and at one site in fact collected 

17,000 pounds of DDT that were sitting in farmers’ and others’ 

barns, not used, thankfully, but sitting there as a potential threat 

to groundwater and the river systems. So those takeback sites, 

takeback events are very important and first step efforts to get us 

right on the ground, to get some of those chemicals out. 

Senator MERKLEY. Another thing you mentioned in your testimony was that various products have hormonal effects. Either they 

may be directly, and I reference to perhaps birth control pills that 

are flushed down the toilets and end up in the waterway, but also 

other chemicals that have hormone simulation impacts. 
216 

Has there been enough study to really understand what the most 

significant threat is? Is there kind of like this is No. 1, this is No. 

2 and so forth? 

Ms. MARRIOTT. I have to say that is a little bit beyond my area 

of in-depth technical expertise regarding specific contaminants and 

their impacts. I do know that antibiotics and the birth control hormones that you mentioned are two of the significant contaminants. 

There are other medications, both over the counter and prescriptive 

medications, that cause the same kinds of impact. So again, drug 

takeback and collection sites are one immediate way to get at least 

the products we are not using out of the water systems. 

Senator MERKLEY. One of the things that we have heard about 

in this Committee is the role of BPA. Is that right? 

Ms. MARRIOTT. Yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. BPA in plastics. And we have also heard a lot 

about the plastic bags and plastic bottles that are in the waterway. 

And is that considered one of the—is that a significant issue? 

Ms. MARRIOTT. The source of that is largely flame retardants, 

and those are plasticizers that are in almost everything we touch, 

wear, live with—our computers, probably everything in this room, 

our fabrics. I know a couple of States, and I believe the State of 

Washington, has passed a limited ban products with flame 

retardants from being manufactured in the State. That is an issue 

that probably will take State and national leadership to have us 

address because the products are so widespread. 

Senator MERKLEY. Well, my time is mostly up, so in 15 seconds, 

is there anything else you would like to add? 

Ms. MARRIOTT. You know, I would, actually. I started doing this 

in the Columbia about 15 years ago, and shortly after that my son 

was born. And I remember saying at the time that when he was 

an adult, I wanted to be able to look him in the eye and tell him 

I had done everything I could to improve this water body. And I 

have to say, he is 13 now, and I can look him in the eye, but I can’t 

quite tell him I am done. I think there is still much more work we 

need to do. 

Thank you again for your leadership on this. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you for all your work. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Thank you to all of you. As you know, I am from Minnesota, 

which on our license plate it says Land of 10,000 Lakes, but it is 

really 15,000 lakes. One of them is very big, and that is Lake Superior. And as you know, we have had some recently a lot of concern 

about the Asian carp issue, something I actually also talked, as 

Senator Cardin mentioned, I head up the Interparliamentary 

Group with America and Canada. Congressman Oberstar heads it 

up on the House side. We talked about that as well. 

So if you, Mr. Naftzger and maybe Mr. Ullrich, representing the 

Great Lakes piece of this panel, could comment a little bit about 

what you see as the best ways to prevent those large fish that jump 

up in the air and hit fishermen over the head and cause great danger to our ecosystem and our economies, what is the best route to 

go here. 
217 

I know there is talk about the lock closings, trapping these fish, 

shooting these fish. What is the best way to do it? 

Mr. NAFTZGER. Mr. Chairman, Senator Klobuchar, thank you for 

the question. It is a huge problem, and as you know we have ongoing litigation among the States about some of the particular solutions that could be exercised. 

Nevertheless, there are a number of things that the States and 

I think most of the region can agree on. One is to complete the 

Asian carp barrier that is in place in the Chicago sanitary and ship 

canal. The other is to expedite the Army Corps’ work to study a 

long-term solution of ecological separation between the Mississippi 

River watershed and the Great Lakes system. And that would really be looking at preventing all transfer of species between those 

two watersheds. And we have certainly seen species go the other 

direction as well, although the carp, of course, is moving toward 

the lakes. 

But nevertheless there is an unprecedented effort. There has 

been an effort led by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Army Corps and many other 

partners, and we are very hopeful that those efforts will be successful, but it is going to take a sustained and long-term commitment. 

This isn’t likely a threat that will recede in the near term. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Ullrich. 

Mr. ULLRICH. Just a couple of comments, Senator. First of all, we 

are fortunate we don’t have any litigation between any of our cities, 

so we are still together, I think, as a unit on this. 

Second, I would say probably the most important thing is to retain the sense of urgency that we have gained over the last couple 

of months where the awareness of how far the carp appear to have 

gotten is known. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I mean, I asked one of the Army engineers, 

is there some thought Lake Superior would be too cold, and no one 

can guarantee that because these fish adapt. 

Mr. ULLRICH. Yes. They go where they want. But we must, as 

Mr. Naftzger said, we must maintain the sense of urgency as we 

move forward with critical short-term, mid-term and long-term actions. In the short term, as I understand, under the framework 

that was established by the Federal Government and State involved as well, increased and improved surveillance to find out 

where they really are now was started as recently as last Wednesday. There was a good effort before, but that has substantially been 

increased so we know where they are, how many of them there are, 

and where they are moving so that the various techniques to deal 

with them, whether it is rotenone treatment or other new approaches, can be utilized. 

The next thing I would say is looking at the locks. I am concerned that it was viewed as a silver bullet solution to the problem 

that really, from everything I understand, is not the case. Some 

form of modified lock operation that dramatically reduces the likelihood of movement of the carp but at the same time allows for navigation to go through, I think is an important thing. 

Accelerating the studies so that we can get to a true solution to 

this problem long term, including a commitment to a separation of 

these water bodies in a way that will not allow the species to so 
218 

easily go back and forth, is essential. Because it is Asian carp 

today, but it is going to be something else tomorrow. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Right, other invasive species. 

Mr. ULLRICH. Yes. We have heard about the quaggas and the zebras and everything else. They don’t wait for anything. We have 

made it way too easy for them. So that needs to be a real commitment. 

I think ongoing congressional oversight is critically important to 

this as well, but people are pulling together. It appeared the unity 

was fragmenting, but I think we are very committed to do everything we can to keep the Great Lakes community together on this. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. One last question. Just how would you view 

success, apart from the Asian carp issue, as we look at these restoration efforts with the Great Lakes? What should we have as our 

goals here for the Great Lakes as we look at the initiative and everything the Administration is doing? What do you think the key— 

the most important things are for the Great Lakes? 

Mr. ULLRICH. Well, looking long term now, I think we need to 

have a goal of zero introduction of new invasive species to the 

Great Lakes. It may take a lot of work and a long time, but I think 

with that kind of a goal we will get closer sooner if we really 

stretch that. The 1972 Clean Water Act said zero discharge of pollutants by 1985. We didn’t make it, but we got a lot farther because we had that kind of a goal. 

Second, and near and dear to the hearts of our communities, is 

dealing with combined sewers and sanitary sewer overflows. I 

think we ought to have a long-term goal using green infrastructure 

and traditional gray infrastructure to continue to drive that down 

toward zero. I think those are two of the critical things. 

Third, restoring habitat. We have got to get acres back in the 

coastal habitats, particularly the wetlands that are so critical in 

terms of water clarity, holding water for flood purposes, and habitat for fish, wildlife and others. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Naftzger, do you want to add anything? 

Mr. NAFTZGER. I think our challenges are many. We certainly 

have to restore the areas of concern. We have to deal with the 

wastewater and other issues that Mr. Ullrich referenced. And we 

need to stop invasive species. Those are just three of many challenges we face. It is going to take a concerted effort over a number 

of years, and we are very eager to build on the success we have 

had with the restoration initiative to really accelerate that 

progress. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for including two representatives from 

the Great Lakes. I don’t know if you know this, but I served on the 

Oceans Subcommittee of Commerce during my first 2 years, and I 

went to the first meeting and every Senator there had an ocean except me, Lott, Snowe. And I finally turned to Frank Lautenberg. 

I said, ‘‘You know, everyone here has an ocean except me.’’ And he 

wrote a note to me that said, ‘‘That is OK. Next year, just come 

back and ask for one.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So there we are, but I have my Great 

Lakes. Thank you very much. 
219 

Senator CARDIN. Well, we will change the name to the Great 

Oceans. We will figure out the way to do that for you. 

Well, again let me thank all of our witnesses. 

Mr. Tauzel, I want to start with you, if I might, because I think 

the agricultural community is a very important part and player in 

this. They are clearly one of the major stakeholders in all of our 

efforts to deal with the great waters. 

You mentioned farm environmental management tools that have 

been made available in various bills and legislation that worked its 

way through. I can tell you in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, it 

has been very important. 

And then you said something which is typical of the agricultural 

community, your suspicion about regulations, but if we are going 

to have regulations, you would like them to be locally dominated, 

and we certainly understand that. 

I want to get to the additional tools that could be helpful to the 

agricultural community as we look at all the stakeholders taking 

actions to help us in dealing with the water qualities issues. One 

is the Nutrient Trading Program. The other is technical assistance 

to farmers. I can just tell you that in my own State of Maryland, 

farmers do not have the resources to make the type of applications 

or plans that can help us with dealing with the Chesapeake Bay. 

Technical assistance is an issue that we have talked about. 

But I would like to get your view as to how important those additional tools could be to help the agricultural community as responsible stakeholders here. 

Mr. TAUZEL. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

So to the point, from a technical perspective, technical assistance 

perspective, you are absolutely right. I talked a lot about the need 

for agriculture, the needs out there to help support agriculture and 

best management practices on farms. 

However, the technical assistance is a critical component of that 

as well. We can have all the funding up on top, but if we don’t have 

technical assistance to move that funding on to farms, it is not 

going to happen. 

I talked about the local concept of AEM, and really that is where 

it comes down to, the farm, local sewer and water districts in New 

York working together to implement best management practices. 

Anything that the Congress could do to move forward on increased 

technical assistance would be welcome by New York, certainly, and 

by New York farmers. 

You talked a little bit about the nutrient trading program as 

well. And nutrient trading provides a market based approach to 

how do we address nutrient management and pollution controls on 

farms, as well as in other sectors as well. 

Nutrient trading has potential. We certainly would welcome the 

opportunity to establish compacts to either allow for inter-State nutrient trading or to allow States that want to focus on solely inState aspects of concern to stay intra-State as well. 

There is a concern that when we apply Federal oversight, and we 

applied TMDL standards that require everything from everyone everywhere, that that eliminates the opportunity for farms to trade 

those credits and to then gain economic opportunity, basically saying that, you know, some of the models that you look at would say 
220 

everybody has to do all of the best management practices. Well, 

that leaves out a lot of the opportunity, then, that farms have to 

trade off those management practices and the nutrient reductions 

they would see from that and gain that economic advantage from 

that. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, just to follow up on that, the programs 

that have been submitted dealing with nutrient reduction require 

a certain level from the agricultural practices. And it requires a 

certain level from wastewater treatment facility plants and development and other issues. 

The point is that in the agricultural field you can get in some 

cases below what is required at less of a cost than perhaps dealing 

with development or wastewater treatment facility plants. So the 

economics of it is such that a municipality would say, look, we are 

prepared to buy your nutrient credits if you go beyond what the requirements would otherwise require you to do. 

I think that is how it would work with a nutrient trading program. There is always more that can be done is the economics of 

it. 

Mr. TAUZEL. Exactly, to a degree, you are correct. There is always more that can be done. Unfortunately, you will eventually hit 

that threshold, and if the expectations are so high on agriculture 

that there is nothing more that can be done or that physically it 

is not possible for a farm to do more, then that farm does not have 

that opportunity to transfer those funds and to take advantage of 

those opportunities. 

Senator CARDIN. Certainly. 

Mr. Grannis, I want to, if I might, just agree with your comments about how we are all interrelated here. New York and Maryland have a lot in common. As I mentioned, as you were going 

through the different water bodies in New York, the Susquehanna 

is very important to us, where it starts in Cooperstown, New York, 

and part of the watershed area. 

I remember very much the debate concerning the migration of 

bass from New York near the Long Island Sound into the Chesapeake Bay. And our prized rockfish is part of the heritage that is 

involved somewhat in the work that you are doing in the Long Island Sound. So all this is interrelated. 

I guess I have a question for the entire panel and would ask if 

you could respond briefly. The model seems to be similar in all of 

the great waters, and that is to try to bring together all the stakeholders to get the best technical information you can get, the best 

science, come up with a unified strategy that everybody signs on, 

to try to provide the resources to help implement those plans, to 

have the appropriate reviews and public support for the program. 

But at the end of the day, if you have not accomplished what 

good science tells you you should have accomplished, how do we 

hold you accountable? 

Mr. GRANNIS. That is a very good question, Senator. Obviously, 

you know, there is a huge wealth of intellectual capability and talent that we all bring to the able in these discussions. I think setting out after you get the science and after you get the stakeholder 

input are management plans with measurable goals. I think it is 

perfectly appropriate. I know we have had these discussions on 
221 

Chesapeake Bay about very strict standards and progress to be 

measured against so that we could see what we are doing, whether 

what we are doing makes a difference in the cleanliness of Chesapeake Bay. 

I think having those measurable goals and then publicly announce those goals and measure our progress against that I think 

is critically important. It comes back to this other issue, though, 

with all the resources that we bring to bear. I mentioned this in 

my statement, the idea that somehow in these difficult times when 

we have such ambitious goals among all of us here for protecting 

our great waters, is that we are really going to have to rely even 

more heavily on a consensus at the Federal level to support these 

programs, particularly in the short term, with even more resources 

that might be needed in the long term as the economy recovers and 

we can bring our own financial resources to the table. 

We are constrained. We have a huge budget deficit in New York, $8.5 billion projected for next year. And so the matches required 

for Army Corps projects, for some of these ongoing efforts to meet 

these goals are going to be very, very tightly constrained. 

Senator CARDIN. I am sympathetic to what you are saying, and 

I support the resources being made available and prepared to say 

that based upon the resources that are available and what science 

tells us we should achieve, and if still you do not achieve that level, 

what is the enforcement? What is the accountability? 

How do I go back to the taxpayer of this Nation and say we made 

the investment, science told us we should have reached this level, 

that this is a national treasure, a regional treasure that you all 

want to pass on to your children and grandchildren? We want your 

12-year-old to be able to enjoy this in the future. We want you to 

be able to, with a good conscience, be able to say you have done 

everything you can. 

But if for reasons that the voluntary nature of these programs, 

and they are voluntary natures generally, doesn’t result in what 

science tells us we should have achieved with the investment that 

we made, then how do we hold you accountable? 

I will give Mr. Ullrich a chance, and I will come back to you. 

Mr. ULLRICH. Well, I think this is all about problem solving, Senator. One of the good examples I think of what you are posing is 

the phosphorus levels, particularly in Lake Erie, that we dealt 

with. A tremendous effort was put in over the years to reduce phosphorus loadings, with a great deal of success, improvement in the 

water quality, best walleye fishery in the world in part as a result 

of that. 

Early to mid-1990s, the phosphorus level started to go back up 

again without increases in loading, and the scientists were perplexed. I think the most common thought right now is the element 

that the zebra mussels have introduced and the way they process 

nutrients and particularly phosphorus is in fact making the problem worse. 

I think the way you hold us accountable, and this is consistent 

with the concept of adaptive management. The first time, you don’t 

always completely solve the problem. You bring us back and you 

say, OK, why didn’t it work? And what are you going to do to fix 

it this time? 
222 

And I do believe—I sense that you are getting at somewhat the 

balance of voluntary and regulatory programs. You have got to 

have some regulatory programs. That is why we had the dramatic 

reductions in industrial and municipal discharges since 1972 and 

huge improvements in water quality. 

I had a little experience with the Environmental Protection 

Agency over 30 years. Some of the early work was with the farming 

community and obviously not enjoying the regulatory approach too 

much, but a certain amount there. Confined animal feeding operations and dealing with that was a very important thing. 

So you have to look at the right mix between voluntary and regulatory, with good enforcement associated with that. And then sometimes you have to go back to the drawing board and go forward 

with plan B. 

Senator CARDIN. Anyone else want to comment? 

Mr. Wright. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes. I think in the Tahoe Basin, we do have that 

kind of mix that folks are talking about. TRPA long ago established 

a very aggressive, basically two-phased plan. One is a very strong 

regulatory framework, but we also have a comprehensive restoration plan that is voluntary, but they are linked. So local jurisdictions are put on notice that if they don’t meet these certain nonregulatory targets, that there is going to be an impact on their ability to develop in the basin. And it has worked very, very well. 

Obviously, you have to have agreement on those goals and those 

benchmarks to make that effective. And you also have to have a 

commitment, and this is where we all keep coming back to funding, 

it is relatively easy to get together a contentious group of State, 

local and Federal folks to develop a plan, but to sustain that plan, 

to continue to get funding for science and monitoring and oversight 

and coordination is probably the biggest challenge we all face because the political pressure is so intense to get projects done on the 

ground, as opposed to having the kind of performance measures, 

monitoring systems, adaptive management systems that will provide you with the kind of accountability you need. 

So we think it is a combination of having a regulatory program 

and the voluntary program, but also have the systems in place so 

that we can track and account for the success that we are having. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Dicks. 

Mr. DICKS. Yes, I would just quickly echo that. I think one of the 

things we are finding is from a longevity standpoint, if you don’t 

invest in monitoring and really actually know the truth about what 

is or is not happening on the ground, you can’t have an accountability system. 

So when Bill Ruckelshaus took the chairmanship of our Leadership Council, the one thing he asked our Governor was, you have 

got to invest in monitoring. And that was the commitment she 

made. Because if you don’t do that, you don’t know two things. 

One, you don’t know how to change in an effective manner. So we 

tried this, it doesn’t work, what do we do next. You don’t learn. You 

don’t have a learning sort of organization. 

But secondarily, when you call us back here in a couple of years 

after some of these things are moving forward, if we can’t say, we 

started here, and now we are here, and here is the monitoring re-
223 

sults and credible science program to be able to peer review that, 

that is going to be the end of our programs. So I think a lot of us 

get that. 

I would say just quickly on the voluntary versus regulatory side, 

it is this mix. Bill would also say, I think, you have to have rules. 

You have got to have limits, and you have got to have sort of a bottom line. But you also at that point have to sort of set that out, 

and then give people the capacity, the resources, the encouragement, the help, the scientific input to enable people to be successful 

to meet those targets. 

So that is kind of the model we are trying to pursue with Puget 

Sound, and I think it is a very good question. Hopefully, with monitoring, with true understanding of what is going on, it is pretty 

easy to then hold people accountable in comparison to where we 

have maybe been in the past. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, one of the things we learned from the 

Chesapeake Bay Program is that we had 5-year plans, and we 

would wake up after the fifth year and say, gee, we didn’t do what 

we said we were going to do. 

We are now looking at 2-year reviews and modifications based 

upon, again, good science during the entire period. So you have the 

monitoring, and you have the progress, and you don’t wait until the 

end of the plan before recognizing that what was established 5 

years earlier was either not realistic or was not complied with. 

And you are absolutely right. We do have regulatory enforcement 

now. It is not necessarily directed toward the program that you all 

are trying to see specified by the Federal partnerships, so you have 

different pieces here and there. And what we are trying to do with 

the Chesapeake Bay is to try to focus it in on the Bay itself, to 

have local plans and local enforcement, but with accountability to 

achieve the results that science tells us we can. 

Mr. Grannis, I interrupted you before. Did you have anything 

further? 

Mr. GRANNIS. I think that is a very important point because we 

have the headwaters of the Susquehanna River, and our farmers 

on the northern border, the border with Pennsylvania, are saying, 

why should we do anything when Pennsylvania is letting their 

farmers go ahead and not do what we are being called on to do? 

We have a very aggressive enforcement program. We are fully 

engaged and doing our part to clean up our contribution to the pollution that ends up in Chesapeake Bay, but in a political sense not 

having the same standards not only on paper, but enforced. And 

that is a very, very difficult issue for our farmers that are just looking at their contemporaries across the border and seeing that they 

can do things which our farmers aren’t being allowed to do. 

Senator CARDIN. Yes, I think that is a key part. You have to 

have a plan where, as you said all the lands are, whoever said, the 

last panel, said all the lands are included. All the geographical 

areas that are impacted need to be a part of the program so that 

there is a sense of fairness here. 

You are right. If farmers in one State are treated differently than 

the farmers in another State with the same problem areas, that is 

not right; we need to have a coordinated plan. The plans need to 
224 

be locally sensitive because there are differences in New York and 

Pennsylvania, but they need to have the same objectives. 

Mr. GRANNIS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. NAFTZGER. If I might add, responding to your question, Mr. 

Chairman, I think we need to be more courageous than we have 

been historically and be more open to changing course when things 

aren’t working. 

Senator CARDIN. Right. 

Mr. NAFTZGER. We in the Great Lakes had a system of managing 

how water was used for 16 years. It was not working particularly 

well. It took us 7 years to negotiate an inter-State compact and get 

that into law, so we solved that problem. 

We have had many Federal programs that have been looking at 

the Great Lakes for many, many years. We have achieved some 

successes, but it wasn’t working as well as it could or should have. 

So it took this Administration’s proposal, this Great Lakes Restoration Initiative to say, let’s try something different; let’s try a different model and see what the results turn out to be. If those fall 

short, we should be back here having a conversation and saying, 

how can we change course again? And what can we be doing differently or better? 

We need to be demanding, and we need to be courageous. I think 

we have gotten a few good examples that suggest that that is possible, but it is not easy. 

Senator CARDIN. Clearly, being able to adjust, based upon the realities, need to be there. The realities might well be budgets. You 

know, you planned a program based upon certain support. Well, 

that support was not possible under the political environment of 

our time, so you have to be able to adjust. That is all part of the 

monitoring that I think is not just monitoring the progress you are 

making as far as the water quality; it is progress that you are making in regards to implementation of your plan. 

Ms. Marriott. 

Ms. MARRIOTT. I agree with my colleaguesand certainly your 

points. I would add that I think sometimes we also need to do a 

better job talking about the implications of not acting and helping 

us as citizens understand why we need to undertake some of these 

efforts and how our individual efforts play into this as well. 

Senator CARDIN. Agreed. Yes. 

Mr. Tauzel. 

Mr. TAUZEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, just to respond a 

little bit on the topic. You are absolutely right. Our farmers believe 

truly in equitable enforcement across—you know, if our farmers 

are being held to a level of environmental conservation and environmental stewardship, all farmers, we believe, should be held to 

that same level. 

The question is, though, whether that necessitates additional legislative authority. And I think that right now, Federal regulations 

do provide every State the opportunity to regulate in the same 

level. Beyond that, I think what is also important to recognize 

when dealing with the agricultural community is that environmental management makes good business sense. Longer term businesses, sustainable businesses need to make sure that they are 

protecting the environment. 
225 

So with that in mind, if we have farms, what I want to suggest 

is another approach that the Federal Government could take for accountability procedures as well, is that if we have good actors, if 

we have people who are doing their job, and if they are protecting 

water quality, that we reward those participants, that we provide 

additional incentives to agricultural operations that are doing a 

better job in managing the environment. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I agree with that. And the other side of 

that is those farmers that have already made the right environmental investments need to be rewarded as we go forward with the 

next stage of expectations. We are trying, in the Chesapeake Bay 

region, to take those farmers who have gone beyond what they 

need to do on nutrient management, allowing them to benefit from 

the trading program because they have gone beyond what would 

have been required. So they have actually done more. You 

shouldn’t be penalized because you did the right thing. 

Mr. TAUZEL. Thank you for those thoughts, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. Right. Well, thank you all. This has been a very 

helpful panel, and we thank you for your contributions. Obviously, 

this is going to be an area of great interest to our Committee and 

great interest to the U.S. Senate. 

With that, the Committee-Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12 p.m. the Committee and Subcommittee were 

adjourned.] 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Thank you, Madam Chairman and Chairman Cardin, for holding this hearing on 

the following great water bodies: the Great Lakes, Lake Tahoe, Puget Sound, Long 

Island Sound, and the Columbia River. 

Americans use these great water bodies for recreation, and businesses use them 

as essential transportation links from ocean ports to inland ports where goods are 

then distributed throughout the country. Furthermore, water from these water bodies irrigate farms, provide drinking water and generate electricity. Their many important and essential uses to our everyday lives truly make them great. 

The Clean Water Act states that ‘‘it is the policy of Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use (including restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of land and water resources.’’ (Clean Water 

Act, sec. 101(b)). Regional commissions have been established to, among other 

things, help States and local governments balance the many needs for water use 

with water protection. 

When States have conflicts on how to respond to issues affecting these great 

water bodies regional commissions should serve as the appropriate referees to resolve these conflicts. If that option fails then the Federal Government can provide 

tools and assistance to reach a resolution. 

Additionally, it is appropriate for the Federal Government to set national standards and provide assistance in meeting those clean water goals. It is not the role 

of the Federal Government, however, to decide how water bodies should be used or 

to plan for the use of land within States. Let me emphasize: Washington, DC, 

should not be issuing mandates determining how a water body should be used. 

Several bills have either been introduced or are currently being worked on to help 

address some of pollution control concerns. I hope that this Committee will hold additional legislative hearings on these individual bills to determine how they balance 

the authority of Federal, regional, State, and local governmental bodies in addressing interstate or regional water concerns. 

Thank you again. 
226 

STATEMENT OF HON. CARL LEVIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

The Great Lakes are vital not only to Michigan but to the Nation. Roughly onetenth of the U.S. population lives in the Great Lakes basin and depends daily on 

the lakes. The Great Lakes provide drinking water to 40 million people in the U.S. 

and Canada. They provide the largest recreational resource for their 8 neighboring 

States and for millions more from other States and other countries. They form the 

largest body of freshwater in the world, containing roughly 18 percent of the world’s 

total; only the polar ice caps contain more freshwater. They are critical for our economy by helping move natural resources to the factory and to move products to market. 

While the environmental protections that were put in place in the early 1970s 

have helped the Great Lakes make strides toward recovery, a 2003 GAO report 

made clear that there is much work still to do. That report stated, ‘‘Despite early 

success in improving conditions in the Great Lakes Basin, significant environmental 

challenges remain, including increased threats from invasive species and clean up 

of areas contaminated with toxic substances that pose human health threats.’’ More 

recently, many scientists reported that the Great Lakes are exhibiting signs of 

stress due to a combination of sources, including toxic contaminants, invasive species, nutrient loading, shoreline and upland land use changes, and hydrologic modifications. A 2005 report from a group of Great Lakes scientific experts states that 

‘‘historical sources of stress have combined with new ones to reach a tipping point, 

the point at which ecosystem-level changes occur rapidly and unexpectedly, confounding the traditional relationships between sources of stress and the expected 

ecosystem response.’’ 

Asian carp represents a massive threat, and a number of important actions are 

required to deal with it. The zebra mussel, an aquatic invasive species, caused 

$3 billion in economic damage to the Great Lakes from 1993 to 2003. In 2000, seven 

people died after pathogens entered the Walkerton, Ontario, drinking water supply 

from the lakes. In May 2004, more than 10 billion gallons of raw sewage and storm 

water were dumped into the Great Lakes. In that same year, more than 1,850 beach 

closures in the Great Lakes. Each summer, Lake Erie develops a 6,300-square-mile 

dead zone. There is no appreciable natural reproduction of lake trout in the lower 

four lakes. More than half of the Great Lakes region’s original wetlands have been 

lost, along with 60 percent of the forests. Wildlife habitat has been destroyed, diminishing opportunities necessary for fishing, hunting and other forms of outdoor recreation. 

These problems have been well known for several years, and in 2005, 1,500 people 

through the Great Lakes region worked together to compile recommendations for restoring the lakes. These recommendations were released in December 2005, and the 

President’s Great Lakes Restoration Initiative has been a path to addressing these 

many threats. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is a 5-year commitment of the 

President. It represents great hope for the Lakes. 

Building on past success, there are a number of programs that need to be authorized and reauthorized in Federal law. For instance, the Great Lakes Interagency 

Task Force, established by Executive Order in 2004, requires that the many Federal 

agencies operating in the Great Lakes coordinate with each other. Restoring the 

Great Lakes involves many stakeholders, including the Federal Government, States, 

cities, tribes and others, and Congress needs to be sure that the Federal agency efforts are in order. 

The Great Lakes Legacy program has been extremely successful and has cleaned 

up about 900,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediments at areas of concern 

throughout the Great Lakes. This is a partnership program which requires a nonFederal cost-share to address the legacy of contaminated sediment in our region. 

The Legacy program expires at the end of 2010. 

Finally, the Great Lakes region needs a process for advising the EPA and other 

Federal agencies on Great Lakes matters. While there have been various advisory 

groups that have been pulled together over the years, there has never been a standing advisory entity, and that has been a gap in the governance and management 

of the Great Lakes. 

Mr. Chairman, the Great Lakes are a unique American treasure. We must recognize that we are only their temporary stewards. We must be good stewards by doing 

all we can to ensure that the Federal Government meets its ongoing obligation to 

protect and restore the Great Lakes. 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 

Æ