U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

65–482 PDF 2011

REVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 

BUDGET AND PRIORITIES OF THE 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: 

IMPACTS ON JOBS, LIBERTY, AND THE ECONOMY 

(112–12) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 2, 2011 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

TOM REED, New York 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

TOM REED, New York 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington, 

Vice Chair 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Stanislaus, Mathy, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, United States Environmental Protection Agency ................. 16 

Stoner, Nancy, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency ...................................................................... 16 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Cohen, Hon. Steve, of Tennessee ............................................................................ 47 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Stanislaus, Mathy .................................................................................................... 48 

Stoner, Nancy ........................................................................................................... 56 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

Bishop, Hon. Timothy H., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New York, request to include chart entitled, ‘‘H.R. 1: State-by-State Cuts 

to Clean Water State Revolving Fund Investments’’ ........................................ 5 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 65482.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 65482.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 65482.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 65482.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 65482.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 65482.006
(1) 

REVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 

BUDGET AND PRIORITIES OF THE 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: 

IMPACTS ON JOBS, LIBERTY, 

AND THE ECONOMY 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES

AND ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Gibbs (Chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. GIBBS. The committee will come to order. This is the subcommittee hearing of Water Resources and Environment of the 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Today we are having a hearing, ‘‘Review of the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget and Priorities of the Environmental Protection Agency: Impacts on Jobs, Liberty, and the Economy.’’ 

And before we get started, I would like to just take a minute or 

two and let the Members kind of introduce themselves. And I guess 

we can start down there with the Representative from Oklahoma. 

Mr. LANKFORD. I’ll do that. James Lankford, representative from 

the central Oklahoma, Oklahoma five, it’s Oklahoma City. 

Mr. LANDRY. Jeff Landry, Louisiana three, that’s the coastal area 

of Louisiana. A lot of water. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Jaime Herrera Beutler, Washington 

State’s Third Congressional District. We have the Columbia River, 

and a lot of water, as well. 

Dr. HARRIS. Andy Harris, Maryland’s First District, the Chesapeake Bay. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Well, this is a first, Chairman. Gary 

Miller from California’s 42nd District. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Let me introduce our ranking member, 

Representative Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Tim Bishop, New York one, eastern Long Island, 

also lots of water. 

Mr. RAHALL. Representative Nick Rahall from West Virginia, 

ranking member of the full committee. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Representative Russ Carnahan from the St. 

Louis area, along the Mississippi River. 

2 

Ms. HIRONO. Mazie Hirono from Hawaii, and we are totally surrounded by water. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GIBBS. Again, I would like to welcome everybody and our two 

guests from the EPA. But first, I will start off with an opening 

statement. 

I have a number of concerns about the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s ongoing activities and plans in fiscal year 2012. These are 

issues I want the subcommittee to explore during this Congress, 

and hold hearings on some of them, when I think it would be helpful to Members. 

First and foremost, I am concerned about the proliferation of socalled guidance coming out of EPA, in an attempt to short-circuit 

the process for changing Agency policy without following a proper 

transparent rulemaking process. Much of this so-called guidance 

amounts to being de facto rules instead of advisory guidelines. 

In addition, I note the exponential increase in regulations coming 

out of the EPA in recent months, or planned for the near future, 

related to the subcommittee’s jurisdiction. Many of these regulatory 

efforts are based on questionable science, at best, and stand to substantially increase the regulatory burden for States, local governments, and businesses, especially small businesses. EPA is making 

a mockery of the administration’s regulatory review initiative to reduce regulatory burdens in our country. 

These guidance and rulemaking efforts of concern include, but 

are not limited to: guidance to expand the scope of jurisdiction of 

the Clean Water Act; guidance on permitting of sole surface coal 

mining; EPA’s recent veto of an existing permit for an ongoing mining operation; expanded regulation of storm water, including postconstruction site run-off; new development and redevelopment and 

existing development through retrofitting; numerical water quality 

standards for the State of Florida; numerical water quality standards for the entire Mississippi River basin, including water intake 

structures. 

I am concerned that more regulations means more unfunded 

mandates to burden our cities and towns at a time when they need 

relief from these types of injustices. 

I am concerned that the EPA seems to have a fondness for guidance, as opposed to regulations, and thus, have found a backdoor 

way to get de facto rules in place without the transparency that is 

built into the formal rulemaking process of the Administrative Procedure Act. 

I am concerned that the EPA has usurped State authority by effectively taking over the implementation plans for the Chesapeake 

Bay States, and has expressed its intention to do the same elsewhere. 

I am concerned that the requirement for numerical standards for 

the State of Florida is just the beginning, and other States will 

soon have costly, job-killing requirements placed on them, as well. 

I am concerned that while the President is imposing more regulatory burdens on communities, businesses, and citizens, he, at the 

same time, is calling for the reduction in spending in many for 

many other programs that assist communities in their efforts to 

come to compliance with regulations. While the President is willing 

3 

to increase enforcement spending, he is cutting spending for compliance assistance efforts. So, what I have here is a Federal Agency 

that will add to the burden of rules and regulations, reduced programs to help folks come into compliance, but would also put more 

boots on the ground to track down those who cannot come into 

compliance with little or no benefit to the environment. 

This is a government at its worst, an Agency cutting facilitators 

but increasing regulators. I want clean water as much as anyone, 

but I recognize that we have to have a strong economy so we can 

afford to invest in new programs that new regulations require. 

Today is not the day to put more burdens on the American people. 

We need to make significant progress in creating long-term jobs 

and a stronger economy before we can tolerate more expensive regulations. 

At this time, I will turn it over to Ranking Member Representative Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for holding this hearing on the President’s fiscal year 2012 

budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Today marks the first of two planned hearings to review the 

budgets and priorities of the agencies under the jurisdiction of the 

Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment. These 

hearings provide a valuable opportunity for our new and returning 

Members to learn the breadth of this subcommittee’s jurisdiction 

over several executive branch departments and agencies. And I 

look forward to working with the chairman to hear firsthand from 

the other agencies within our jurisdiction during these planned 

hearings. 

Mr. Chairman, all of us recognize the gravity of the financial situation facing this Nation and, indeed, the world today. This Nation 

is just starting to emerge from the worst economic recession since 

the Great Depression. However, with the national unemployment 

rate still standing at 9 percent, and the unemployment rate for the 

construction sector at 22.5 percent, we are far from completing our 

work. 

Thanks, in part, to the foresight of this administration and the 

courageous actions of the previous Congress, our Nation was able 

to lessen the potential impact of the last recession on hardworking 

Americans, and pull our economy back from the brink. Conservative estimates confirm that, but for the infusion of additional infrastructure investment advocated by this committee for inclusion 

in the Recovery Act, job losses in the construction sector would 

have been far worse. 

As this committee has shown time and time again, investment in 

our Nation’s infrastructure does have a significant impact, and 

positive impact on the economy, and it does create jobs. This is why 

I am so concerned that the new Republic Majority has taken aggressive steps to cut funding from many Federal programs with a 

proven record of providing economic benefits to the Nation, and for 

creating jobs. 

Unfortunately, Republicans have responded to this Nation’s economic situation with an axe, when a scalpel would seem more appropriate. Just 2 weeks ago, the Majority pushed through a stopgap spending bill that decimated several critical infrastructure inVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:13 Oct 12, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\3-2-11~1\65482.TXT JEAN
4 

vestment programs, and threatens increased job loss and economic 

uncertainty at an extremely delicate time on the Nation’s economy. 

Today’s budget hearing title references impacts to jobs and the 

economy. According to two separate reports from Wall Street analysts, the Republican Majority’s proposal to cut $61 billion from the 

current fiscal year budget would decimate broader efforts at job 

creation throughout the Nation, and would be taking an unnecessary chance with the ongoing economic recovery. 

Specifically, these reports highlight how, if enacted as passed by 

the House, the Republican proposal would result in 400,000 fewer 

jobs created by the end of fiscal year 2011, 700,000 fewer jobs by 

the end of 2012. In addition, news analysis of the report suggests 

that the proposal would reduce the growth in the gross domestic 

product by up to 2 percent points this year, essentially cutting in 

half the Nation’s projected economic growth for 2011. 

Christine Todd Whitman, a Republican EPA administrator under 

President George W. Bush, estimated that the needs of our Nation’s aging water infrastructure topped $660 billion. Yet, with the 

budget of the Environmental Protection Agency, within that budget, the most notable reduction is the $1.4 billion proposed cut to the 

Clean Water State Revolving Fund, the primary source of Federal 

investment for our Nation’s wastewater infrastructure. Unfortunately, this proposal marks a clear reversal of recent bipartisan efforts to increase investment in our Nation’s failing and outdated 

wastewater infrastructure, and on efforts to improve our Nation’s 

water quality. 

In terms of job losses, this cut alone would eliminate over 39,000 

direct construction jobs throughout the country, and countless additional jobs in the industries and small business that support the 

wastewater construction industry at a time when many small businesses and the construction sector are struggling to recover. Furthermore, this cut undermines longstanding Federal efforts to address our Nation’s aging infrastructure system. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include in the record 

a chart showing the direct State-by-State losses under the Republican Majority’s proposal to cut the Clean Water State Revolving 

Fund. 

Mr. GIBBS. So ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

5 


Insert offset folio 7 here 65482.007
6 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I would like to highlight just a few additional programs where the cuts voted on by the Majority will have 

significant adverse impacts on the economy, could result in additional job losses throughout the Nation, and place at risk the 

health of a greater number of families. 

First, the Republican Majority has proposed to cut EPA 

Brownfield site assessment and clean-up grants by 30 percent. This 

popular bipartisan program provides valuable seed money to cities 

and towns throughout the country to restore abandoned or underutilized properties, to promote economic development, and to return 

commercial properties to local tax rolls. Estimates suggest that the 

Republican proposal will result in 300 fewer properties being assessed during the current fiscal year, 20 fewer sites being cleaned 

up, and a potential loss of over 1,500 additional jobs, and approximately $300 million in leveraged redevelopment funds. 

The Majority has also proposed to cut EPA’s Superfund budget 

by $32 million. This program, which was created by this committee 

to clean up the Nation’s most toxic waste dumps, is critical for protecting public health and the environment, and for exposure to hazardous substances. While the exact number is not yet know, EPA 

expects that the Republican proposal to reduce funding for this program will result in fewer clean-ups being undertaken, will increase 

the risk that our communities and families remain exposed to toxic 

chemicals and substances, and could lead to the layoff of countless 

clean-up workers. 

Finally, the Majority has voted to pull back on EPA’s compliance 

and enforcement capabilities, making it far more difficult for the 

Agency to identify and pursue serious violations impacting public 

health and the environment in communities across the Nation. According to estimates, the Republicans’ continuing resolution could 

result in the loss of as many as 100 compliance and enforcement 

personnel, 1,000 fewer inspections across all media—that is to say 

air, water, waste, and toxins—and the loss of millions of dollars to 

the U.S. Treasury from foregone fines, penalties, and settlements 

from the most egregious violations. 

In my view, this proposal stands in stark contrast to the Agency’s effort to increase compliance in critical areas within a limited 

budget, and suggests that a weakened compliance and enforcement 

presence is somehow better for the Nation. These are just a few examples of the potential negative impact of the Republican continuing resolution on our Nation’s economy and on jobs. 

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, I recognize the challenging economic times facing this Nation. In my view, this administration 

has taken a pragmatic approach to respond to our economic situation at the same time as prioritizing the programs and policies that 

preserve its core mission of protecting public health and the environment while reducing air and water pollution. 

However, in contrast the administration’s efforts stand with respect to the Draconian cuts proposed by the Republican Party in 

the continuing resolution. In my view, as well as a great many respected non-aligned economics, the cuts proposed by the new Majority will result in immediate and significant job losses, will significant weaken national efforts to emerge from the last recession 

7 

stronger than before, and will shift the balance from protection of 

public health to protection of the polluters. 

In short, these cuts take the Nation in the wrong direction at the 

wrong time. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GIBBS. I thank you, Representative. Any other representatives like to be recognized? 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do thank you, Chairman Gibbs, and Ranking Member Bishop, for holding these hearings, and allowing me to participate today. And I join in welcoming 

our acting assistant administrator, Nancy Stoner, and assistant administrator Mathy Stanislaus. 

This hearing is timely, without a doubt. Given recent action by 

the House of Representatives during consideration of the fiscal year 

2011 CR, the Agency faces the prospect of some challenging times 

ahead, to make an understatement. I often feel that the Majority’s 

backdoor way to defund EPA is to require so many appearances of 

the administrator and her staff on Capitol Hill these days, that all 

the budget will go to gas money at today’s increased gas prices. 

Those of us who live in southern West Virginia believe that we 

can have a balance between energy development and environmental preservation, and we have been doing such for decades. But 

balance cannot be achieved without fairness and equity. And the 

policies of the EPA at times have been anything but fair and equitable when it comes to coal mining in Appalachia. 

When the EPA issued its detailed guidance concerning Clean 

Water Act permitting in April of this year—in April of 2010, last 

year—it did so singling out coal mining, and coal mining only in 

Appalachia. Though the Agency labeled it interim guidance, the regime it spelled out was made effective immediately. And now the 

EPA is scheduled to finalize the guidance on April 1st, less than 

a month from today. 

A government cannot have one set of rules for one industry in 

one region of the country, and a separate set of rules for everyone 

else, and claim to be fair and just. What is more, the EPA is treating this so-called guidance as if it were binding policy. It is limiting 

State-issued discharge permits based on non-compliance with this 

guidance, bypassed an existing law, and longstanding regulation, 

and it is substituting a wholly new, barely studied, entirely confusing criteria for determining water quality, along with new timeframes for review and approval of petitions. 

Further, the regime that is set forth in that guidance memo has 

thrown the permitting process throughout the region into utter turmoil, with rules being determined on a case-by-case basis. The EPA 

erred in the way it pursued changes in its surface coal-mining permit processes. Now, some changes were warranted, grant you. Certainly, the status quo was not working. 

I do not know of anyone who opposes clean air and safe water, 

or who wants our children’s health put at risk due to a degraded 

environment. And I worry that deep funding cuts will weaken our 

economy and stifle job creation that we so sorely need. But the 

message that I hope our witnesses take back with them today is 

that, in striving to achieve worthy valued goals, the EPA must 

work with the Congress and with the people who elected us. Or it 

will, as the framers intended, find its power checked. 

8 

So, Mr. Chairman, I commend you again for having these hearings, and I do ask unanimous consent that I may submit written 

questions for the record, and ask that they be responded to. 

Mr. GIBBS. So ordered. 

At this time I want to call on the vice chair, Representative Herrera Beutler, for opening comments. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s a pleasure to have you here today. I know that this is going to be, hopefully, a very productive time of discussing priorities, and priorities 

as they relate to jobs and job growth. In my region in southwest 

Washington State we have double-digit unemployment in every 

county, save the county that has the State capital in it. And we 

have been languishing there for several years now. 

We have a tremendous resource with our rain. I know people 

complain about Washington State and the west side of the State 

and the rain and the gray. But, actually, if you grew up there, you 

kind of love it. 

We have the fourth largest river system that abuts my district, 

and we have tremendous resources when it comes to lakes and 

streams throughout the region. And because of this, one of our biggest challenges has been not just how those streams are taken care 

of, but really, the government’s willingness to help us do a good job 

in taking care of those things. 

I hear from small employers all over my district, that they 

can’t—they physically cannot hire the people to comply with some 

of these regulations. 

Let me tell you. Two years ago our department of ecology cited 

the Clean Water Act requirement that we not be allowed to wash 

our cars in our driveways, because of the run-off. I mean we’re to 

the point where we’re beside ourselves with some of these regulations. 

And so, it was disheartening—and I know there is a lot of talk 

about the CR that passed a week ago that’s obviously not passing 

in the Senate, is not—you know, that whole bill is not likely to become law. So we are really dealing—we are not dealing with some 

of the Draconian job cuts that were discussed. But what we’re really dealing with is an administration and a Congress that seem to 

be going in two different directions. 

Last year alone your Agency promulgated over 900 new rules 

that small businesses in my district are struggling with. It’s not 

just the small businesses, it’s the counties and the cities. They are 

coming under intense challenges and regulations to upgrade systems. And we’re talking about small cities with very, very small 

rate-based—rate payers in the region, and they are having to come 

up with multimillion-dollar upgrades. All of this, in light of the 

President’s budget, which reduces help with compliance, and increases the number of boots on the ground, when it comes to enforcement. 

Now, in my mind, if our common-shared goal is to keep our waterways clean for the next generation, we should be wanting and 

jumping at helping people comply. In my limited lifetime experience, I have learned that honey goes further than a stick. The willingness to work with people who have a shared goal versus just 

drop a hammer on them is the way we reach that goal. And it realVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:13 Oct 12, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\3-2-11~1\65482.TXT JEAN
9 

ly seems like—and I’m expressing some frustration that it seems 

like your Agency has been unwilling to work with us on some of 

these issues. 

So, I am looking forward to working with you. You will likely receive a tremendous amount of correspondence from my office. I had 

my PUD in from my largest county yesterday, gave me this EPA 

rulemaking timeline, and I will make a request for unanimous consent to have it put into the record. These colored boxes—I had to 

deliver to them the news that they are losing ability, or help, with 

implementing these requirements from your Agency. At this time, 

in my mind, that is unacceptable. 

So, I look forward to finding some solutions with you, as we move 

forward. Thank you for being here today. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs and Ranking Member Bishop, for holding this hearing today on the administration’s 

fiscal year 2012 budget and priorities for the EPA. 

I am pretty sure we all agree there are important steps we must 

take to address our deficit. It’s critical that we balance this with 

making important investments in water infrastructure and public 

safety to ensure sustainable economic growth and job creation. 

In my opinion, the President’s budget request for the EPA does 

just that. It balances the need to make investments in our water 

infrastructure with the need to reduce our deficit. We hear often 

from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about the job-killing nature of regulations, but we don’t often hear about the problems with killing our health and our environment. I think the key 

is that we have common sense environmental regulations. That 

should not be viewed as a burden, it should be viewed as a responsibility of all of us. And tough economic times and serious plans to 

bring down the debt do not equal a free pass for polluters. 

So, I think I would like to see a common sense balanced approach. We all my have different ideas. We obviously are dealing 

with a divided Congress this year. But there is areas where I think 

we should focus, look for some common ground. 

I was pleased to hear the President, in his State of the Union, 

talk about the need for additional investments in infrastructure. 

All of us on this committee, I think, can agree with that. And the 

very next day we had the head of the U.S. Chamber and the head 

of the U.S. AFL–CIO come out and make a joint statement, also 

talking about the need for that, the importance for business creation to grow this economy and to grow jobs. 

So, I would like to look at some of those common ground issues. Specifically in the President’s budget it proposes $1.55 billion in 

Federal capitalization grants for the Clean Water State Revolving 

Fund. In my home of St. Louis, the metropolitan sewer district has 

used that Clean Water Revolving Fund to address a serious problem of combined sewer overflows. We still have a lot of work to do 

there. 

While this is a decrease of funding over the fiscal year of 2010, 

it’s far better than the 67 percent decrease included in the Republican CR. The quality of our streams, in fact, the mighty Mississippi, the health of our citizens depend on these programs and 

us really administering them in a smart way. 

10 

So, I look forward to working with you, and working with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to continue to make progress 

in a common sense way. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Representative Landry, do you have an 

opening statement? 

Mr. LANDRY. I sure do, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I thank 

you, and I ask unanimous consent to revise and supplement these 

comments. 

I want to thank Chairman Gibbs for calling this hearing, and our 

witnesses for giving their time to testify. 

I want to start off by telling the committee I am an avid hunter 

and fisherman. In fact, one of my favorite places on earth is hunting at my camp. I hold a bachelor’s degree in environmental science 

and renewable resources. I own several businesses that did environmental work. So I feel like I have a personal understanding of 

the importance of EPA’s congressionally designated mission to provide us with clean water, fresh air, and abundant wildlife. 

However, I am concerned that, in practice, EPA’s mission bears 

little resemblance to the congressionally authorized mission, and 

instead, is more about impeding commerce than protecting the environment. While I could use many examples today, I will specifically address the issue of 404 permits. Before I do, let me provide 

two clarifications. 

First, I certainly understand that, under the Clean Water Act, 

the Army Corps of Engineers is the lead Federal Agency. However, 

when I meet with the Corps, they tell me you are to blame. I’m 

sure that today you will tell me that they are to blame. I’m here 

to tell you you’re all both to blame. Everyone is involved in this 404 

permit process. 

Secondly, I want the committee to know that I understand the 

importance of wetlands protection. In my district, wetlands provides invariable protection to human lives against hurricane storm 

surges. These wetlands are disappearing at an alarming rate. In 

just almost the half-an-hour that we’ve been in this committee, 

Louisiana has lost half a football field already, disappearing into 

the Gulf of Mexico. If this erosion continues, 2 million people in 

Louisiana will become subject to more frequent floods, and more 

susceptible to the effects of hurricanes. 

The Clean Water Act was designated to protect these vital wetlands. As used, though, section 404 has caused huge delays to 

projects with minor impacts to minor wetlands. Let me give you an 

example. 

Recently, a local levee district went to perform a maintenance 

dredging on a drainage canal. EPA came out, looked at the canal, 

and declared the canal now a wetland, because the prior owner had 

not provided proper maintenance. This drainage canal, the canal 

that was specifically built and specifically designed and specifically 

used as a drainage canal is now, in your eyes, a federally protected 

wetland. So, instead of facing a $200,000 maintenance dredging 

project, this levee district faces a $500,000 to $1.1 million dredging 

and mitigation project. That does not even include the costs and 

delays associated with securing the 404 permit. 

I want to remind you that the dollars for this project come from 

local taxes, not the Federal Government. Obviously, the levee disVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:13 Oct 12, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\3-2-11~1\65482.TXT JEAN
11 

trict cannot afford this amount. As a result of the cost increases, 

the levee district has not only—has been not only prevented from 

dredging the canal, but also from installing a new pump station in 

Lockport, Louisiana. Because this pump station has been delayed, 

a major shipyard, a major employer in my district, is in danger of 

flooding. 

So, instead of protecting the important coastal protection wetlands, the EPA is using the act to increase the cost, decrease the 

effectiveness, and delay projects which protect my constituents, create jobs, and further economic activity. 

I know I am not the only having this problem. As cited in ‘‘Sitting on our Assets,’’ a report from this committee, the average 404 

permit takes 2 years and $271,000 to complete. Overall, private industry and local governments spend $1.7 billion every year in preparing and securing 404 permits. I hope today’s witnesses will address how EPA hopes to streamline the 404 permit process in order 

to protect our important wetlands without interfering with job creation, economic development, and community protection projects. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Ms. Hirono? 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs and Ranking Member 

Bishop. Today we will hear from the EPA regarding your fiscal 

year 2012 budget request for water and wastewater management. 

No community can thrive or even survive without clean water 

and efficient wastewater management systems. Likewise, we cannot ensure the health and safety of our population without adequate enforcement of the rules and regulations necessary to enforce 

the laws that we have passed. 

We have heard a lot this morning about the need and desire to 

work with you. So I was pleased to read in your testimony, Administrator Stoner, that the EPA, for example, is implementing a sustainable water infrastructure policy that focuses on working with 

States and communities to enhance technical, managerial, and financial capacity. 

There is no doubt that every State will be affected by what we 

do here today and in the coming months. So let me focus a bit on 

Hawaii. Hawaii is especially sensitive to water issues, as run-off 

from the mountains in the center of our islands often pours down 

quickly through our communities and into the ocean. Without adequate wastewater management, we would be putting our already 

fragile marine environment in jeopardy. 

For example, a temperature change of one degree, or sudden flow 

of mud and water from the land, can kill the corral that helps to 

attract so many visitors to Hawaii, and also provides a habitat to 

our unique marine wildlife. 

Of course, in addition to insuring the safety and security of our 

natural environment and communities, water infrastructure 

projects serve as serious job creators, which is why I was very concerned over the Draconian cuts to the Clean Water State Revolving 

Fund in H.R. 1, which cuts Hawaii’s fiscal year 2010 portion of 

these important funds from approximately $16 million to only $5 

million, and would put approximately 300 people out of jobs. And 

I know that our ranking member is putting into the record a chart 

of the impact of these cuts on every other State. 

12 

We should be putting programs like the SRF at the top of our 

priority list, and effectively funding the key responsibilities of 

agencies like yours. If we underfund the core responsibilities of the 

EPA, which includes effectively enforcing our environmental laws, 

we not only undermine job creation, but we are also playing chicken with public health and safety in the future. 

Of course, we have a lot of tough decisions ahead of us, and we 

are sure to disagree about how best to meet these goals. For example, I disagree with the President’s decision to terminate the 

USDA’s small watersheds programs which, though it is not an EPA 

program, is so vital to ensuring access to clean, safe water for the 

rural communities and farmers in Hawaii. 

However, these disagreements cannot end in deadlock. We need 

to work together to move forward. So I look forward to hearing 

your testimony. And I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Representative from Oklahoma, 

Lankford? 

Mr. LANKFORD. Yes. Thank you. And thank you for being here. 

I know this is probably the favorite part of your week, when you 

get a chance to run up and get a chance to testify. And I thank 

you for doing that. 

Let me mention a couple of things. I have no question that Republicans and Democrats are committed to clean water. All of us 

like to drink water. All of us like to bathe in it. All of us like to 

be around it. So this is not an issue of suddenly Republicans want 

dirty water and Democrats want clean water. This is an issue of 

how we handle that balanced perspective of keeping things in a focused relationship between business and individuals in government 

regulatory environments. 

Let me also say to you region six of the EPA, which Oklahoma 

is in, has been extremely helpful. They have been very responsive. 

And I would pass on my great compliments to them, both from 

local businesses and municipalities, that when they have asked 

questions, region six has been very responsive. So thank you very 

much for the continued work there on that. 

There are obviously key issues in America, and EPA seems to be 

the signal point for a lot of those. Jobs are obviously affected. I was 

in a separate hearing where there was constant conversation about 

the increasing regulatory environment and the acceleration of regulations. One of my friends from the other side of the aisle said, 

‘‘The more regulations we create, the more jobs we create, because 

there is more compliance officers that are hired.’’ The people that 

were on the panel at that time were not real pleased with the fact 

that the way we’re making more jobs in America is by making 

more compliance officers in America. They really want to be able 

to produce products, produce goods and services. 

The more compliance officers that we hire to be able to fill out 

paperwork and be able to submit it back to EPA and other agencies, the slower our economy becomes, because we are dragging 

down into it. We are dealing with things like energy and not permitting in different areas. We are dealing with the way we’re handling hydraulic fracking, and the constant threat over hydraulic 

fracking at this point. 

13 

Transportation infrastructure is slowing, because they’re trying 

to figure out how to deal with storm water runoff around the construction site, and there is this constant acceleration of what has 

to be done to maintain storm water runoff around a construction 

site. 

Cities and municipalities are dealing with unfunded mandates 

that are being placed on them dealing with wastewater and their 

water coming in for drinking water. It is this acceleration that is 

occurring that is causing them to have to invest dollars they currently don’t have. It literally takes police officers and firefighters 

off the streets and puts them into investing into storm water systems and into compliance people that are filling out paperwork and 

sending it to Washington and police officers are not going on the 

street in local municipalities because they have limited dollars. 

And they have got to be able to make those hard choices. So, the 

more we accelerate the requirements on local municipalities, the 

fewer services, actually, municipalities are getting on this. 

The issue is we’ve got to find a balance. And my hope is, in the 

days to come in our conversations, that we don’t come in a combative way, we come in a conversation to say, ‘‘This is what we are 

hearing from our district, from individuals, from city leaders, from 

businesses, to say we are hearing these things. You may or may 

not be hearing these things; we are hearing them screamed at us, 

saying, ‘Please get the EPA off of us, we cannot continue to function this way, and can’t continue hiring people that are not producing goods and services, but only producing paperwork for the 

EPA.’ ’’ 

So, I appreciate you coming. I appreciate the conversation. Hopefully it can be a very warm, friendly conversation to actually come 

to some solutions. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Representative Harris, do you have an 

opening statement? 

Dr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking 

Member Bishop. I would ask unanimous consent to extend and revise my comments. 

I look forward to a spirited hearing today, as it should be whenever we’re talking about something as important as clean water. As 

a physician, of course, look, I understand the importance of clean 

water. I think everyone does. But, you know, we do have a discussion ongoing as to the budget implications. I mean that’s what this 

hearing is about. 

And the facts are that, you know, we have had triple-digit 

growth in the EPA budget since fiscal year 2008, when we are approaching double-digit unemployment. Now, I venture to guess— 

and I will ask you later about whether or not you had double-digit 

employment growth in your Department while the Nation went the 

other direction. 

And clearly, the discussion about jobs and the CR is not as clear 

as some Members on the other side of the aisle would have it. In 

fact, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the 

record a letter from 50 leading economists, just to say that H.R. 1 

actually will improve the job environment in the United States, not 

make it worse. 

14 

Now, nature was good to the Eastern Shore of Maryland; that’s 

the part I represent. You know, it carved out the Chesapeake Bay, 

which is beautiful, but it also created some of the best agricultural 

land in the eastern shore of this country. 

And when I go back into my district, I talk to farmers and I talk 

to poultry growers—we’re also one of the leading poultry regions— 

and I talk to people who live on the water. And I tell you. There 

is great concern over what the EPA is doing. And not only from 

those constituencies, because the natural constituencies, the agriculture, the farmers in Maryland and the poultry industry in Maryland—this is Maryland we’re talking about—are pretty used to 

coming under the rather rigid thumb of the environmental controls 

in Maryland. 

But the surprise was from the small municipalities, some as 

small as 40 houses, and the large municipalities in my district, and 

the counties in my district, that look at the heavy hand of the 

TMDL regulations, as they are currently proposed, and say they 

can’t afford it. In fact, my jurisdictions would have property tax increases of 50 percent in order to afford those regulations. 

Now, perhaps people in the Department have a different view of 

what the economy looks like, and what it looks like for the average 

property owner on the eastern shore of Maryland. But they can’t 

afford a 50 percent increase in their taxes from an unfunded mandate coming from a faceless bureaucrat who, I don’t think, understands the real world realities of what’s going on in the First District of Maryland. 

So, I will tell you. We’re going to talk about a lot of these things, 

because we have to. The economy, as I go out and talk to many of 

the business owners in my district, and I ask for an example of regulations, there are two they always give me. One is the 1099s, 

which we will deal with on the floor later today, and eliminate that 

regulatory boondoggle, and then the second is the EPA. 

I don’t know what you have done to gain the ire of so many hardworking people in my district, but you have. And I think we’re 

going to have to look very closely and very carefully at how the administration does its business, and why there is this uniform feeling in our district that the EPA is holding back certainly our economic growth with regards to agriculture and the poultry industry, 

and this worry among our municipalities and counties that there 

is this huge unfunded mandate coming down on them. 

And I will tell you, from the budget situation, they are not going 

to get help from the Federal Government. I know the Maryland 

budget situation. They’re not going to get help from the Maryland 

State government. They’re going to be left to raise their property 

taxes on hard-working Americans and our seniors, our retired folks 

who—that’s the biggest tax bite they have in their budget. They’re 

going to get 50 percent property tax increase because of what 

TMDLs are going to do. And that’s just in one of our jurisdictions. 

So, I look forward to a very spirited discussion on a wide variety 

of issues. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. GIBBS. And, so ordered, your statement will be entered into 

the record. 

Representative Duncan. 

15 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I got 

here a few minutes late because of other meetings, and I really 

hadn’t intended to say anything, but then I heard Ms. Herrera 

Beutler’s statement, and I thought about how I am hearing the 

exact same things from small businesses in my district. And I 

heard the statements of some of these other Members. And I can 

tell you. This is my 23rd year in the Congress. And in all that time, 

I have never heard as many complaints or concerns about the EPA 

as I have just within the last few weeks or months. 

In fact, just yesterday, I had consulting engineer in my office 

who worked for many years for the Knoxville Utilities Board, and 

now he is a consulting engineer for—I think he said Nashville and 

Chattanooga and Memphis. He said—he’s in his mid-fifties. He 

said he had never seen so many unnecessary or excessive regulations coming down on these utility boards as he had just in the last 

few months, and he was talking about the billions in costs that 

we’re talking about. 

Yesterday I had the administrator and some other officials from 

a very small town in my district just outside of Knoxville, and they 

were talking about the same thing, and how they couldn’t afford it. 

I heard my colleague from Maryland talk about that. I am hearing 

the exact same thing. 

This morning I met with representatives of the coal ash industry, 

and they were talking about the regulations, potential regulations 

from the EPA, that could cost billions on the highway construction 

process in this Nation. And last week we saw on the front page of 

the USA Today that the gas prices—the top of their front page 

story says that gas prices were going to go to $5 a gallon or higher. 

Yesterday I had the—I had a meeting with their transport association, and I had representatives of the eight largest airlines. And 

they told me that each one penny increase in jet fuel costs the aviation industry, as a whole, $200 million a year. 

I think too many people within the EPA don’t realize that some 

little minor change in regulations can cost this Nation billions. And 

it doesn’t hurt the big giants. In fact, in any highly regulated industry, the small guys go out first, and then the medium-sized 

businesses are run out, and in these highly regulated industries, 

they end up in the hands of a few big giants. So, when you overregulate, it helps the big giants, but it sure hurts the small and 

medium-sized businesses. And what it does, it drives up costs for 

the poor and the lower income and the working people. That’s who 

is hurt the worst. 

And so, I hope that—I saw where the administrator said, well, 

she is hearing the same doomsday things that were spoken 40 

years ago. Well, 40 years ago we hadn’t sent millions of jobs to 

other countries. And 40 years ago we weren’t going through the situation that we’re going through today. And we have just seen 

some—we’ve been seeing a start of a recovery. But if we drive these 

gas prices back up, and—to even higher levels, and do some of 

these other things, we’re going to back in. We’re going to have a 

double-dip. And the EPA will deserve a lot of credit for that, if we 

do that. But it’s going to hurt a lot of poor and lower income people 

in the process. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

16 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Representative. At this time I want to 

welcome Ms. Nancy Stoner. She is the acting assistant administrator for the office of water in the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

Welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF NANCY STONER, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND MATHY STANISLAUS, 

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND 

EMERGENCY RESPONSE, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. STONER. Good morning, Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am Nancy Stoner, the acting assistant administrator 

for the office of water at the U.S. EPA. Thank you for the opportunity to speak about the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request for EPA’s national water program. 

Mr. Chairman, clean water is not a partisan issue, and—as several of the Members have recognized today—residents in urban 

areas, rural areas, young and old, from red States and blue States, 

all demand clean and safe water in their communities and when 

they turn on their taps. Protecting public health and the environment is the core mission of the EPA, and this includes our work 

on clean and safe water. 

Our programs not only fund water infrastructure in every part 

of the country, but also help communities ensure that their drinking water is safe from a litany of threats. Clean water is vital to 

the U.S. economy. A wide range of businesses depend on clean and 

adequate water supplies, including manufacturing, energy generation, tourism, farming, development, fishing and shellfishing, food 

processing and beverage production, and others. The Clean Water 

Act is precisely designed to provide—to protect those many uses of 

water by American businesses, which employ millions of Americans 

and impact virtually all citizens and communities. 

While much progress has been made, America’s waters remain 

imperiled. More than 59,000 water bodies in the U.S. do not meet 

water quality standards, which are based on those uses. The primary sources of impairments are pathogens, nutrients, sediment, 

PCBs, and mercury. 

Consider these facts about the value of clean water to the U.S. 

economy. About 40 million anglers spend $45 billion annually to 

fish all kinds of waters. Manufacturing companies use 9 trillion 

gallons of fresh water every year. The beverage industry uses more 

than 12 billion gallons of water annually to produce products valued at $58 billion. Farms depend on clean water for irrigation. 

Thirty-one percent of all surface fresh water withdrawals in the 

U.S. are for irrigation. And, in an example nearby, the Chesapeake 

Bay is valued at $1 trillion for its fishing, tourism, property values, 

and other water-dependent business. 

The EPA request for the national water program is for $3.98 billion, which is a 25 percent reduction from fiscal year 2010 enacted 

levels. The requested level still allows EPA to maintain its fundamental mission of protecting human health and the environment, 

17 

but also reflects the tough choices that Americans are making 

every day, and which many of you spoke about this morning. 

The funding will allow the Agency to drive technology innovation 

for a stronger economy, spur job creation, and protect the environment cost-effectively. That substantial cut goes beyond eliminating 

redundancies. We have made difficult, even painful, decisions. We 

have done so, however, in a thoughtful, careful way that preserves 

EPA’s ability to carry out its core responsibilities to protect the 

health and well-being of American children and adults. 

You have been reviewing the fiscal year 2012 budget request for 

EPA for more than 2 weeks now, so I will not march through all 

of its details in this opening statement. However, the largest aspect 

of the water budget at EPA goes directly to States for water infrastructure. Specifically, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and 

Drinking Water Revolving Fund provide affordable loans to local 

communities to finance public waste water systems and other 

water quality projects that protect public health and vital water resources. 

The fiscal year 2012 President’s budget request includes $1.55 

billion for the Clean Water SRF, and $990 million for the Drinking 

Water SRF, enabling States and tribes to begin over 600 clean 

water projects, nationally. This represents a reduction of $947 million from the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 

The fiscal year 2012 President’s budget also provides $350 million for the Great Lakes restoration initiative, $67.4 million for the 

Chesapeake Bay program, and $6 million for the Mississippi River 

basin. These funds will target the most significant environmental 

problems in these critical ecosystems, including Asian carp prevention, reducing harmful nutrient pollution, and working with State 

partners and local stakeholders. 

In conclusion, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the 

members of the subcommittee, for this opportunity to discuss the 

President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request for EPA’s national 

water program. EPA looks forward to continuing our work with 

this subcommittee to foster protection of America’s waterways, and 

the public’s health and well-being. And I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Our next witness is Mr. Mathy Stanislaus. He 

is the assistant administrator to the office of solid waste and emergency response of the U.S. EPA. 

Welcome. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Good morning, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member Bishop, and members of the subcommittee. I am Mathy 

Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator for the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss EPA’s 

proposed budget for Superfund, Brownfields, and other programs 

that fall under the Committee’s jurisdiction. 

In addition to protecting human health and the environment, 

EPA is responsible for ensuring that our land and our communities 

are safe, habitable, and prosperous for all Americans. Protecting 

human health and the environment is a non-partisan issue that affects all of us. EPA has employees throughout the country working 

18 

closely with State and local officials to clean up hazardous sites in 

our communities, many of which have a long history of pollution. 

This budget request allows EPA to carry out its core mission and 

fund the most critical efforts to protect the health of American families, while making tough choices that Americans across the country are making every day. To clean up our communities, the President is proposing investments that clean up contamination and 

promote economic development and job creation. The President’s 2012 budget proposes $175 million for the 

Brownfields program to support State and tribal clean-up programs, and to support planning, clean-up, job training and redevelopment of Brownfield properties, especially in underserved and disadvantaged communities. EPA’s Brownfields program uses this 

funding to successfully leverage economic investment in rural, 

small town, and urban areas. More than $17 is leveraged for every 

dollar expended by Brownfields program funding. And more than 

67,000 jobs have been leveraged through Brownfields program 

funding. And studies show that residential properties adjacent to 

cleaned-up and redeveloped Brownfields sites have increased in 

property values. 

In fiscal year 2012, Brownfield grantees are expected to assess 

more than 1,000 properties, clean up 60 properties, leverage at 

least 5,000 clean-up and redevelopment jobs, and leverage $900 

million in clean-up and redevelopment funding. EPA encourages 

community revitalization by providing funds to assess and clean up 

Brownfields and to support greater community involvement. The President’s budget also proposes $1.23 billion for Superfund 

clean-up efforts across the country, which represents a reduction 

from fiscal year 2010 enacted levels, and reflects the hard budget 

choices that are being made. We will continue to respond to emergencies, clean up the Nation’s most contaminated hazardous waste 

sites, and maximize the participation of liable and viable responsible parties in performing and paying for clean-ups. We are committed to continuing the Superfund program’s success in protecting 

human health and the environment and providing local communities opportunities for economic development by cleaning up our 

Nation’s worst hazardous waste sites. 

The Superfund program to date has provided clean drinking 

water to more than 2.1 million people living near our National Priority List Superfund sites. It has reduced child blood levels at 150 

sites where residential yards were contaminated with lead. It has 

controlled unacceptable exposure from site contamination at close 

to 1,400 sites, more than 84 percent of the sites listed on the National Priorities List, and facilitated the re-use and re-development 

of nearly 550 sites, helping to generate more than 34,000 jobs. 

For example, the South Side Sanitary Landfill Superfund site, located 5 miles southwest of Indianapolis, Indiana, is a former 300- 

acre landfill listed on the Superfund National Priorities List in 

1989. This site was contaminated with heavy metals, asbestos, 

paint, waste, and sludges, which contaminated ground water and 

nearby drinking wells. A slurry wall and leachate collection system 

was constructed to control contaminated groundwater migration. 

The clean-up was designed to allow future beneficial uses of this 

site. Today, a methane gas collection system powers the largest 

19 

commercial glass greenhouse in North America, along with the 

nearby aircraft turbine plant. This site has also provided room for 

commercial businesses in addition to a golf course. The site now 

supports more than 50 jobs. 

The Superfund program also continues to identify hazardous 

waste sites that pose the most significant risk to human health and 

the environment. In fiscal year 2010, the Agency listed 16 new 

sites on the National Priorities List, and proposed an additional 8 

new sites. EPA has continued its efforts to efficiently utilize every 

dollar and resource available to clean up contaminated sites and to 

protect human health and the environment. In fiscal year 2010, EPA obligated nearly $443 million, including 

funding from Superfund program appropriation, State cost share 

funding, and PRP, or potential responsible party, settlement funding, for Superfund construction and post-construction projects. EPA 

used $106 million of its obligated funding to fund 18 new construction projects on 17 National Priorities List sites. 

Finally—I will just continue and finish up—EPA’s oil response 

program is designed to protect inland waterways through oil spill 

prevention, preparedness and enforcement activities associated 

with more than 600,000 non-transportation-related oil storage facilities that EPA regulates. A budget increase in fiscal year 2012 

will allow EPA to broaden and expand prevention and preparedness activities, particularly inspection of high-risk facilities, including implementation of a third-party audit program. 

EPA and the Coast Guard evaluate thousands of spills annually 

to determine if assistance is required. On average, EPA manages 

the oil spill response or oversees response efforts of private parties 

at approximately 250 to 300 sites per year. The fiscal year 2012 

budget requests an increase of $4.5 million, totaling $19.5 million 

for OSWER’s oil spill program to focus on high-risk sites. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Thank you for inviting me to testify. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. I will start with the first question to Ms. 

Stoner. 

You know, budgets are about setting priorities. And as for the 

President’s budget that has been submitted to us there is lots of 

cuts. I think it’s bringing EPA down to levels closer to where they 

were a couple of years ago. We all know we’ve got to cut the budget. 

One concern I have I would like you to respond. There is one 

area of the budget that you are increasing, in the compliance assistance. But there is three sub-categories: incentives, monitoring/ 

enforcement, and assistance. And my understanding is you are zeroing out the incentives and the assistance, and increasing the 

funding to the enforcement, the compliance part. And I would like 

you to respond to how you justify that. Because I think we need 

to work with businesses and entities out there. 

Ms. STONER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question. Unfortunately, the first question is one I can’t answer. It’s about the enforcement and compliance budget, which is not within the office of 

water. 

So we actually do a lot of compliance-related activities in the office of water, including providing funding to local communities to 

20 

help them meet Clean Water Act obligations, to build waste water 

treatment plants, to address sewer overflows. We also provide technical assistance to States and to local entities in developing water 

quality standards and in figuring out how to comply with—but I 

believe you are asking me about the budget for the office of enforcement and compliance—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Let’s go on, then. 

Ms. STONER. And I don’t know, I’m sorry. 

Mr. GIBBS. Would you please submit that for the record, if you 

can, from the other sections? 

Ms. STONER. We would be delighted to do so. 

Mr. GIBBS. Another major concern I have is on the permitting 

process, you know, when an entity goes through all the hoops and 

requirements, the environmental impact studies and everything. 

And, as you know, we had the one operation in West Virginia that 

went far beyond the process and did the environmental EIS study 

and all that, and got their permit and got up running, spent millions of dollars putting rail in, and about 3 years later this administration revoked their permit. 

And, I think that’s setting a huge precedent across all sectors of 

the economy, because what’s going to happen when people—they’re 

not going to be incentivized to take that risk and work to get the 

permit, so you’re going to stifle economic activity and growth. And 

would you please respond on the rationale for revoking that permit 

in West Virginia? 

Ms. STONER. Yes, sir. Thank you for that question. I believe you 

are asking about the Spruce Mine permit. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. 

Ms. STONER. Which the Agency vetoed that permit under 404 of 

the Clean Water Act. And we did take that action, which was a 

very unusual action for us. There have only been 13 404 vetoes in 

the whole history of the Clean Water Act, back to 1972. We felt 

that it was necessary to do so in this case, because of the filling 

of more than 6 miles of streams in—direct filling in the project’s 

proposal, as well as downstream impacts on wildlife. So we did 

take that step in that case. 

Mr. GIBBS. Let me be clear. Please tell me if I’m wrong. But I 

believe the 13 that you mentioned was all pre-issue of the program, 

or through the application process. This revocation of this permit 

was after the permit was issued, and 3 years after the fact. 

Ms. STONER. Yes, sir. You are correct, that it is even more infrequent that we would take an action to eliminate or veto the specification for a particular permit after it was issued. And 13 is the 

total number of 404 vetoes that we have done. Again, very much 

a last resort, in our view. We would very much prefer to be able 

to work out the issues. 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, I think we should let the record show that this 

was the first time the EPA revoked a permit after it was approved, 

and they were up and running and operating. I think that’s clear. 

I think the permits that you’re talking about were during the process before they were finally—final approval. I think we will show 

that for the record. Will you concur with that? 

Ms. STONER. I think there may have been one other permit that 

was revoked in a landfill. But at most, it was the second. 

21 

Mr. GIBBS. The guidance that is going to OMB on the—that 

would—regarding the jurisdiction on the Clean Water Act, when do 

you expect that to be formal from the OMB? 

Ms. STONER. We don’t know the answer to that question. It did 

go over there late December. And usually OMB makes decisions 

within 90 days. We will expect it to go out for public comment. It 

will not be immediately effective. We look forward to talking with 

you and your staff about that when it’s out. 

Mr. GIBBS. And, why are you using guidance, instead of just coming out in the rulemaking process and have the official hearings 

and the testimony, versus doing the guidance? 

Ms. STONER. We are moving forward with the guidance as a first 

step. We are considering additional steps, including rulemaking. Be 

happy to discuss that with you and your staff, as well. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. I thank you, and I will turn it over to the ranking member, Congressman Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want 

to start with the first question that the chairman asked. And, Ms. 

Stoner, I would appreciate it if you would submit a response for the 

record, to make sure that we all have the same information. 

But my information, with respect to the—or my understanding, 

with respect to the compliance assistance budget is that it has been 

combined with the enforcement budget, and the net increase requested for the two combined is $27.5 million. But if—so that there 

is not a cut to compliance. It appears as if it’s a cut, given how the 

budgets are presented, but the category has been folded into another category. If you could please confirm that so that we all have 

the same information, I would appreciate it. 

Ms. STONER. We would be happy to do that. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. For both of you—and thank you very 

much for your testimony—you both indicated that the budget requests reflect the fiscal realities that the Nation is currently grappling with, and that these budgets are—you didn’t use the word, 

but essentially Spartan budgets, but that they still allow the EPA 

to pursue its core function of protecting human health and protecting the environment. And the budget that the President has requested, in total, for the EPA is about $1.4 billion below current— 

or, pardon me, fiscal year 2010 enacted. 

The budget that would be the budget for fiscal year 2011 for the EPA would be another $1.4 billion below that if H.R. 1 were to ever 

take on the force of law. I am one that hopes that it does not. But 

that budget would spend $7.5 billion on the EPA, as opposed to the 

$10.3 billion that is in fiscal year 2010 enacted. Does that budget, 

if it were to ever take on the force of law, does that allow the EPA 

to continue to perform its core functions, or would we be veering 

out of the category of difficult and painful cuts, and into the category of destructive cuts? I will ask that of either of you. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. Well, again, I can talk more specifically 

about the 2012 budget. And, as you mentioned, Congressman 

Bishop, there were tough choices and we are able to maintain our 

core responsibility to protect public health and the environment. 

But it is tough, and we are going to be challenged on the 2012 

budget. And we understand that the Congress and the administration are going to be working on the fiscal year 2011 budget. 

22 

So, we’ve not done the specific analysis, in terms of the cut. But 

what I can tell you is in terms of the hard choices at the fiscal year 

2012 budget, we were able to, with the cut, enable the core mission 

to move forward while—with those cut-backs. So it is going to have 

some challenges, but we were able to maintain that core mission. 

Ms. STONER. Let me just add on the Clean Water and the Safe 

Drinking Water SRFs, which is a large part of the budget of the 

office of water, that we do anticipate that there would be more 

than 700 projects that wouldn’t be able to go forward, and 21,000 

jobs that wouldn’t be created under the budget for H.R. 1. 

That is—lots of people have been speaking this morning, Members have been speaking this morning about the need for local communities to get assistance in complying with the Clean Water Act. 

That’s what those funds are for, complying with the Clean Water 

Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, and those would be cut, and 

jobs would be lost, as a result. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Let me move to that, because I listen 

to Mr. Duncan, my friend, talk about how he has heard more from 

business leaders over the last several months about the EPA, and 

hearing characterizations of the EPA that are not terribly complimentary or favorable. 

What I hear from my business leaders, more than anything 

else—and I represent a coastal resort area district—is the necessity 

for additional Federal involvement in the area of wastewater infrastructure. I represent a district that is approximately 80 percent 

septic systems, and, at most, 20 percent sewers. And my business 

leaders all over my district view the absence of sewage treatment 

systems as an impediment to economic growth, given our environment and given the fact that we are surrounded by water. 

So, I am particularly concerned about both the President’s request for a significant cut in the SRF budget, and even more concerned about H.R. 1, which cuts it even more drastically. Could you 

comment on that, please? 

Ms. STONER. Yes, Congressman. Thank you for that question. 

Yes, those funds are very valuable. There is also the 319 Program, 

which is the nonpoint source program, and helps address problems 

associated with septic systems and other nonpoint sources of pollution. All of those are very helpful to local communities in protecting 

beach water, tourism, fishing, and other very economically valuable 

activities. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Thank you for indulging my time. I yield 

back. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK, thank you. Representative Herrera Beutler? 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it was 

so great to sit in your seat for, like, 30 seconds. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. A question for Ms. Stoner. And forgive 

me, I’m going to read a little bit of it, because to try and get it all 

out—I just want to get the particulars out. 

For longer than I have walked this earth, the EPA has defined 

in its regulations that forestry operations are nonpoint sources, and 

therefore, not subject to Clean Water Act permits. Specifically, the 

NPDES permits. The forest products industry has a documented 

23 

record of compliance. And that industry enjoys a warm welcome in 

my district, and is a significant source of jobs. 

A recent decision by the Federal ninth circuit court of appeals in 

Seattle suggests this regulation is invalid, and that forest roads, 

private forest roads, State and Federal forest roads are, in fact, 

point sources and will require Clean Water Act NPDES permits. 

EPA is not, as you know, a party in the case. And it’s still winding 

its way through the process, through the judicial process. 

We do understand the Agency is currently working on guidance 

that would be applicable to all EPA regions, not just regions 9 and 

10. This guidance would provide a framework for those wanting to 

obtain permit coverage, and to be able to do so. And I understand 

that the Federal appeals court in Seattle has questioned the authority of EPA to establish, by rule, nonpoint source status of forest 

roads. 

I have thousands and thousands of these forest roads on private 

lands in my region. So this is very, very significant to our—I mean 

immediate impact—to our economy. And most of those roads are 

really indistinguishable from thousands of miles of farming and 

country roads in our region. 

So, my question is this. Does the EPA plan to stand behind its 

own longstanding regulation, and avoid imposing this enormous 

regulatory burden on forest owners, farmers, and governments 

throughout this country? 

Ms. STONER. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman. 

The—we intend to follow the law, and the court has determined 

that in the situation in which logging roads collect and discharge 

directly into the waters of the U.S., that those are point sources. 

So, to assist those entities that will need permitting, we are planning to make a permit that we have already on the books available, 

called the multisector general permit, available to those entities so 

that they can obtain coverage and be able to continue to discharge. 

But we will do so in compliance with the law, as determined by the 

Federal courts. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. And to follow up no that, I understand 

that, you know, of course I’m not asking you to go against the law 

of the land. That is winding its way through the courts. It is not 

currently law. And your standing practice has been not to—has 

been, interpretation of the Clean Water Act, that you don’t have jurisdiction over those private lands, and making them—or requiring 

permits from them. 

Should the courts—so take that piece out of this. Does the EPA 

want to continue to follow its longstanding practice, or are you telling me that this is a direction you would like to go, irrespective of 

the court? 

Ms. STONER. We haven’t made that policy decision, Congresswoman, because right now what we are doing is planning to implement the law, as articulated by the courts. If, of course, that decision is changed, if the supreme court were to accept—we would 

take another look at that question at that time. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. And with that, it’s likely that I will be 

looking at legislation to provide a protection for our forest owners, 

or small forest owners on our private lands, as we move through. 

24 

So you may also be receiving, it would be my hope, a law to follow 

in this case. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Mr. Miller, or Representative Miller. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Mr. Chairman, thank you. You’re referred to as the EPA. I think of ourselves as the citizens protection 

agency, because our job is to represent the citizens who elect us. 

And some unusual things are starting to happen with EPA that I 

am kind of surprised at. 

Within the last month, we were representing a constituent to the 

EPA, and we received an email sent to us with an attachment containing an internal memo restricting communication with Members 

of Congress. Basically, it said, ‘‘EPA guidelines, Member of Congress inquiring on behalf of the constituents are treated the same 

as media.’’ That’s a joke. 

I remember about 8 years ago I had a dairy that was being fined 

by EPA, and I went out and looked at a date of discharge. And 

when I went to the site, the EPA gal had a little Earth First tee 

shirt, it was kind of cute, but the dairy man didn’t really appreciate it. And I looked at the road coming into the dairy, and it had 

18-inch curbs, which meant that it was a flood control channel that 

dumped right into the dairy property, and the dairy man’s property 

was flooded. And when an executive came out from EPA they said, 

‘‘It’s not the dairy guy’s fault.’’ 

But my problem is when an agency internally—that’s part of the 

Federal Government—has a guideline that says you cannot communicate with a Member of Congress representing their constituents, something is severely wrong and arrogant with the agency. 

Now, hopefully, something can be done internally so we don’t have 

to legislatively override a stupid regulation. But when people have 

problems with a Federal agency, you’re the only Agency out there 

that restricts access to Members of Congress. 

Give me one reason why you would not have dialogue with a 

Member of Congress concerning a situation that one of their constituents is going through. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, Congressman, I am not familiar with the 

memo. But I can tell you personally—— 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. You need to go back and look at your 

internal communications. Because your guidelines says, ‘‘Members 

of Congress inquiring on behalf of their constituents are treated the 

same as members of the media.’’ I received the guidelines in an 

email. And communication with us was immediately terminated, on 

behalf of the EPA. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. OK. Well, I can’t speak to that. All I can tell 

you, in terms of—I personally respond to congressional Members’ 

inquiries with respect to their constituents’ requests on a daily and 

regular basis, and I will continue to do so. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. So we need to go to the top levels 

when we have a problem, rather than just dealing with EPA? 

But to be honest with you, if one of our constituents has a problem with EPA, they’re not even going to receive a response. They’re 

going to make a phone call, they’re going to be put through this 

legislative bureaucratic process, it’s not—I’m not chastising you, 

but that’s what they go through. At least when they come to us, 

we can usually go to the agency, regardless if it’s FHA, VA, whatVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:13 Oct 12, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\3-2-11~1\65482.TXT JEAN
25 

ever it is, and—even the FBI, we get a reasonable response back, 

and they will have dialogue with us. But when EPA sends my office an email terminating all communications with my office, something is severely wrong with the Agency. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I can tell you that, our infrastructure, we 

have a separate office to coordinate and interact with congressional 

Members. And, clearly, there are some rules when things are an 

enforcement posture which restricts our ability to communicate 

with anyone. But beyond that, you know, we are committed to— 

we have a separate staff to communicate with congressional Members. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. So if we have a question regarding 

EPA policies, and there is an enforcement going on with somebody 

else, you can’t respond to us about your enforcement policies? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. We clearly can, and I have talked about the 

policies. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I would like you to find out internally, and notify the committee, that that procedure is available to 

Members of Congress, and tell me what guidelines that you have 

implemented that would restrict our access. 

Now, if we are trying to get involved in litigation, trying to influence you in some way, we are not—that’s not the goal. But if we 

question a policy and a procedure that you’re implementing, and 

we look at it and say, ‘‘This is just unreasonable,’’ you know, would 

you give us guidelines in which you apply these standards? 

I mean it just—I have never—we have dealt with EPA over the 

years. I have always had a favorable—even when they had imposed 

fines. On this one dairy I told you about, they had imposed a fine. 

They had given a 30-day period to either pay the fine or they would 

proceed from there. And when I contacted them and I said I would 

like to have somebody at a senior level come out and just look at 

the situation. When they came out, they looked and said the enforcement is unreasonable, it was not the dairy’s problem. It was 

basically the flood control agency had not put a diversion channel 

upstream from the property. Thereby, the property was focused on 

to this man’s land. 

But when we’re questioning an internal policy and the way you 

enforce the policy, and we think that the guidelines for that policy 

are unreasonable, to receive an email terminating all communications just is an unreasonable approach. I mean we are elected to 

represent—we’re the House of Representatives. And when we cannot call a government agency on behalf of our constituents, something is severely wrong with the structure of government. And either it needs to be corrected internally, or Congress will correct it, 

one way or the other. 

Because many of us are not happy with the EPA as it is, with 

what they’re doing in many areas. It’s not your problem, that’s our 

problem. But when it comes to communication, when we are cut 

off, there is a serious problem, and that—I guess my time has 

elapsed. So if you would like to—— 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure, I will provide clarification on the record. 

But I can tell you, on a regular basis, I do, as well as the regional 

offices, interact with the congressional Members—— 

26 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. And this is the first time it’s happened, as I said. But I received the memo. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. OK. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Let’s move on. Representative Landry, do you have a 

question? 

Mr. LANDRY. Sure. I was getting ready to have to go into my next 

committee. Yes. My question is, do you believe that there are certain projects that are important enough to this Nation to require 

waivers or exemption from the 404 permit process? 

Ms. STONER. Thank you for that question, Congressman. There 

actually are some exemptions in the 404 process for certain kinds 

of activities. Often farming activities of various kinds are exempt 

from the 404 process. So I would say Congress has made that decision in a number of instances. And I think there are good reasons 

to encourage farming activities. We like to have farmers on the 

land, farming. We know that’s a good land use, from a water quality standpoint. 

Mr. LANDRY. OK. Would you consider maybe some exemptions 

that would lower the cost of—for levee protection and flood control 

back in Louisiana, equal to the same level as those farming activities, as well? 

Ms. STONER. Quite honestly, I am not that knowledgeable about 

levee protection and flood protection, which isn’t within the jurisdiction of the office of water. The Corps of Engineers would have 

more information about that, about whether those exemptions 

should be granted. 

Mr. LANDRY. OK. On Monday, Administrator Jackson was in 

New Orleans to take part in the Gulf Coast eco-restoration task 

force meeting. And at this meeting, the task force asked the participants, ‘‘What is the greatest Federal impediment to your recovery,’’ 

and the response most often given—which, again, many of my constituents—was the cost and delays associated with compiling and 

submitting 404 permits. 

Do you all have anything in the plans or protocols to try streamlining this process? 

Ms. STONER. We have a number of agreements, MOUs, with the 

Corps of Engineers which are designed to make sure that that 

process goes smoothly and as rapidly as possible. I know that it is 

a high priority for the Army Corps to get those decisions made 

promptly. And we try to work as quickly as we can with them to— 

in our joint roles in the permitting process. 

Mr. LANDRY. What was your fiscal year 2008 budget? 

Ms. STONER. I’m sorry, we might have to get back to you on that. 

Mr. LANDRY. OK. 

Ms. STONER. I just have the fiscal year 2010—— 

Mr. LANDRY. Do you know the increase between fiscal year 2008 

to fiscal year 2009, and then—because I know that you all mentioned—I had it here in my notes—that your current budget is a 

decrease from the—by 25 percent from fiscal year 2010, and I am— 

but I’m trying to figure out how much did it increase between fiscal 

year 2008 and fiscal year 2010. 

Ms. STONER. We would be happy to submit that information for 

the record, Congressman. 

27 

Mr. LANDRY. OK, thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. [presiding.] Mr. Lankford, do you have 

a question? 

Mr. LANKFORD. I do. Thank you. Shift subjects a little bit. Let’s 

talk a little bit about energy production and transportation, obviously two major issues in our American economy on that. 

The EPA has obviously been very engaged in energy production, 

and how much oil and natural gas that we will have in America 

in the future days, based on current conversations that are happening right now. It is a unique responsibility from our Department of Energy now, that actually EPA is the one driving how 

much energy we will have in America, rather than the Department 

of Energy and the other sectors, based on some future decisions. 

My understanding is science advisory board has a draft plan 

that’s coming out this next week. Is that something that the members of this committee could see, in advance of when that comes 

out? I understand it’s coming out the 7th and 8th. I would assume 

it’s already done and is ready to go to release out to everybody. We 

would like to be able to see that in advance, so we can get a chance 

to read and review it and see it before the rest of the group gets 

to it, on the hydraulic fracking issue, specifically. 

Ms. STONER. I can check with the office of research and development on that. That—it is their plan, hydraulic fracturing research 

plan, that you are referring to. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Correct. Yes, it is the hydraulic fracking plan, 

and it deals with water, specifically. That—my understanding, my 

research, is that is coming out, like I said, Monday. So I would like 

to be able to see it in advance so I can have time over the weekend 

to be able to review that and prepared for that. Can that be provided? 

Ms. STONER. I can check with ORD on that today. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you very much. This is a major issue to 

us in America, on how we’re going to deal with hydraulic fracking. 

The majority of natural gas in America that heats our homes and 

that has so much production in so many ways for chemical plants 

and such and fertilizer is done through hydraulic fracking now. If 

this plan continues to move forward in a way that is not consistent 

with science, the actions of the EPA could dramatically increase 

the cost of every product in America, based on a single decision. So 

we cannot get this wrong. 

We are also at a very tenuous point that energy producers are 

a little tenuous on being able to invest into future plans and to future fields because of the overhang of a threat of the EPA that they 

may do something at this point to hydraulic fracking. Is there any 

conversation at this point on what will happen with hydraulic 

fracking, and what EPA’s thoughts are on how to be able to enforce, or what thoughts may be on that? I know the reports are not 

out. Tell me where the discussion is at this point. 

Ms. STONER. Absolutely we are in discussions about it. The ORD 

study plan that you referenced is about gathering the science, gathering the data, so we understand what is happening out there, in 

terms of hydraulic fracturing. There is a lot of public interest and 

concern, frankly, about the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on surface water and drinking water resources. 

28 

We had a series of listening sessions last year about them that 

were very well attended, gathering public input on it. So we are 

definitely in discussions now, within the Agency, about what—how 

well we are addressing the issues that are being brought to our attention under the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water 

Act, as well as other authorities that are outside the scope of the 

office of water. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Several years ago—very similar done with this, 

with coal methane, and on the fracking issue. Do you recall what 

the finding was on that, as far as what was done, and the final result of how the fracking was going to be handled, dealing with coal 

methane? 

Ms. STONER. I’m sorry, I’m not sure what you’re referring to 

right now. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Well, just the conclusion. Were there additional 

regulations that were placed on coal, based on the study that was 

done for fracking for coal methane and such? 

Ms. STONER. I am—— 

Mr. LANKFORD. That’s all right. I’m just trying to track—coal has 

already had this study, and it’s much more shallow than what gas 

and oil are. And so we’ve done studies like this very similar. We 

have already been through this. Now we are redoing it again for 

a different industry, and trying to re-evaluate it. And I am trying 

to figure out the path and the pattern. 

I understand that Congress did request this, so a previous Congress came to you and said, ‘‘We want you to do this study.’’ I get 

that. The concern is that it has put an entire industry and prices 

and everything else into quite a bother, because it’s slow to respond, and we are unsure of what EPA is going to do. 

Ms. STONER. Yes. And we will certainly be looking at the existing 

information we have about coal bed methane. There are certainly 

some similarities in the industries, and in that we have done a lot 

of information, including evaluating technologies there. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Sure. 

Ms. STONER. And we will be looking for commonalities, as you 

suggest, Congressman. 

Mr. LANKFORD. One quick question on it. Is there a State that 

you can identify that says, ‘‘This State is incompetent to oversee its 

own water area, so the EPA has to be able to step in on it? If we 

don’t step in, the people in that State are going to get bad water?’’ 

Ms. STONER. We have not withdrawn the authority of any State 

to run the water program, to my knowledge. 

Mr. LANKFORD. OK, terrific. That is one of those areas I know 

EPA has partnered with multiple States to be able to continue to 

have the States handle local enforcement on that. 

I would just recommend the more that we can hand back to the 

States, and the fewer things that we’re trying to do from DC, and 

the more things that an individual State—being from Oklahoma, 

the department of environmental quality, the water resources 

board in Oklahoma are some fantastic people, and they work very 

hard for our land and water, to make sure it’s clean. And the more 

moments that they have, of having to worry about what EPA is 

doing over their shoulder, it gives them the assumption that they 

29 

are being treated as incompetent, they are not thinking about our 

land and water, when they are. 

And so, the more that we can get a chance to evaluate and say 

a State is already handling that, rather than the Federal having 

to take that over, the better. 

Ms. STONER. Yes. Yes, sir. We coordinate closely with the States. 

We work with them as partners. And we try to do work-sharing, 

to do the kind of thing you’re talking about, ensuring that we’re not 

engaged in the same endeavors that they are. 

Mr. LANKFORD. I appreciate that. Let’s accelerate that. Thank 

you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Representative Harris. 

Dr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Stoner, Mr. Stanislaus, for coming before the 

committee. 

First, one question I have is just kind of a quick question. Ms. 

Stoner, are you familiar with the Goodlatte amendment offered to 

H.R. 1 on the floor that removes funding—and it’s very simple, I 

will read it. ‘‘None of the funds made available by this act shall be 

used to develop, promulgate, evaluate, implement, provide oversight to, or backstop TMDLs, or watershed implementation plans 

for the Chesapeake Bay watershed.’’ Are you familiar with that 

amendment? 

Ms. STONER. Yes, sir. 

Dr. HARRIS. OK. Now, the interpretation of some has been that 

this will remove all the on-the-ground activity for this fiscal year, 

with regards to cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay. Do you concur 

with that? 

Ms. STONER. I am not sure of the interpretation of the lawyers, 

but I do know that the Agency is engaged in a lot of activities with 

the States in the Chesapeake Bay and the district. 

Dr. HARRIS. I understand that. My question is very specific. Fiscal year 2011, this says that this has to do with watershed implementation plans. Now, is it my understanding that those watershed implementation plans aren’t—the final plans aren’t even due 

until fiscal year 2012, the final local implementation plans? They 

are not due until fiscal year 2012, is that right? 

Ms. STONER. Well, there are implementation plans that have 

been submitted already, and we are moving forward now with the 

State partners and the local entities to clean up the Chesapeake 

Bay. 

Dr. HARRIS. They are not due until fiscal year 2012, is that correct? 

Ms. STONER. I don’t—— 

Dr. HARRIS. The deadline is December of this year, which is fiscal 

year 2012. 

Ms. STONER. I don’t know the answer to that question. 

Dr. HARRIS. Well, if you could provide in writing why you believe 

that any on-the-ground funds would be—so your interpretation is 

that on-the-ground activities to clean up the Chesapeake Bay are 

negatively impacted for this fiscal year by the Goodlatte amendment? 

30 

Ms. STONER. No, sir. What I said was that we are providing 

funding to the State and local governments to help implement 

clean-up for the Chesapeake Bay this year. 

Dr. HARRIS. Sure. 

Ms. STONER. We did so last year, and we have increased the 

funding this year—— 

Dr. HARRIS. Right, but they’re not under approved watershed implementation plans, because those aren’t due until next fiscal year. 

Is that right? 

Ms. STONER. We—the TMDL is finalized, and we are working 

with the States to implement it now. 

Dr. HARRIS. But you have—the first step is you have to get the 

watershed implementation plans approved. And they’re not due 

until December. 

Ms. STONER. I would be happy to get back to you on that. 

Dr. HARRIS. Thank you. Could you? Second of all, you probably 

read this in the Wall Street Journal. You all are responsible for 

that dairy farm exemption issue with the oil spills. Is that your 

bailiwick? It is EPA, is that right? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. 

Dr. HARRIS. So, my understanding is the EPA suggested a rule 

in January of 2009 to exempt dairy farms from creating oil spill 

disaster response plans, literally for spills of milk on a dairy farm. 

What in the world has taken 2 years for the EPA to finalize that 

rule? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, we are planning to finalize the rule as we 

speak. It’s been submitted to OMB last week. And so, the—— 

Dr. HARRIS. What took 2 years to implement a rule that milk 

spills on a dairy farm should not come under oil disaster response 

plans? Because, I’ve got to tell you, five kids at home, I hope I don’t 

have to do an oil spill plan for the EPA. Although I suspect, the 

way the EPA is going, it’s getting there. Well, let’s move on. Thank 

you very much. You can get back to me in writing on that. 

If we institute—Ms. Stoner, if we institute the TMDLs under the 

watershed implementation plans, and no Federal or State funds 

flow—now, I have 12 counties that are subject to this TMDL. One 

county alone, Anne Arundel County, has estimated it will cost 

$1.87 billion—with a ‘‘B’’—for that county, that that county is responsible for, to implement that plan. That’s one of my 12 counties, 

Anne Arundel County, $1.87 billion, if there are no Federal funds 

available. And, let’s face it, you’ve got $67 billion in this fiscal year 

budget. Anne Arundel County alone would have to spend $200 million in this—that’s just one of my counties, and there are seven 

States and the District of Columbia under the jurisdiction. 

If there is no Federal money, and there is no State money, because our State, like other States, are running short of money, 

would it—would the county really be responsible for that money, in 

order to come under—to come into compliance with the TMDLs? I 

mean if there is no money, do they have to pay, or do you—will 

they be taken into court to pay? 

And this is a 50 percent increase in the property taxes. That’s 

what it would take in that county to pay for that TMDL. Is that 

true, that if there is no Federal money, no State money—doesn’t 

31 

make a difference—that local jurisdiction has to do what that watershed implementation plan says? 

Ms. STONER. Compliance with the Clean Water Act is generally 

not dependent upon the existence of Federal funds for that compliance. But, as we’ve been saying, we provide a lot of funding to help 

communities. 

Dr. HARRIS. If there is no funding. If there is no Federal funding, 

that community has to come up with the dough? That’s about right. 

That’s what I thought. 

Last question. There are estimates that 10 percent of cropland 

would have to be removed from production—10 percent—in order 

to come up under the TMDL compliance, at least in the State of 

Maryland. And I have looked at the figures on nitrogen loading, 

and that’s probably true. 

Will the EPA promise that they will not order farmers to give up 

crop production—we’re an exporter. Fortunately, the United States 

is a net exporter of grains. We have a lot of grain on the Eastern 

Shore. Is there a promise from the EPA that they will not force 

those crop lands out of production, in order to comply? 

Ms. STONER. I am not aware of the EPA ever forcing any crop 

lands out of production. We are working closely with the USDA in 

making sure that there is funding available to help communities in 

the Chesapeake Bay comply. 

Dr. HARRIS. Is that a yes, or—I guess the EPA will not. That’s 

not their intention. My farmers will feel much better. Thank you 

very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Representative Reed, do you have a question? 

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A lot of my questions have 

been addressed with the TMDL and the hydrofracking that come 

from western New York, and that is a priority—those are two priority issues that we are dealing with in our office. So any information you can send or reply to my colleagues, I would greatly appreciate being CC’d on that information. 

I have a question to Mrs. Stoner—or Ms. Stoner, I am sorry. I 

noticed in the President’s budget it zeroed out the compliance assistance program and it increases the enforcement budget. Is that 

an indication from the administration that we are going to focus 

more on enforcement rather than to encourage compliance? 

Ms. STONER. Congressman, I was asked earlier about the difference between the two budget categories. And that is actually in 

the budget for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. So I don’t know the answer to that. 

But I do know that compliance assistance is a very important 

part of the work that EPA does. We don’t do enforcement activity 

in the Office of Water, but we do a lot of different kinds of compliance assistance activities—technical assistance activities, funding, 

as we have been discussing. We provide a lot of assistance to individuals in how to comply with the Clean Water Act. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Reed, may I ask you to yield for a second? 

Mr. REED. Sure, Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. We talked about this before you came 

in. 

Mr. REED. OK. 

32 

Mr. BISHOP. And we have asked Ms. Stoner to provide documentation for the record to make sure that we all have the same 

information. But my understanding of the budget request is that 

the compliance function and the enforcement function are joined as 

one, and the total increase for the two combined is now $27 million 

in the President’s request. 

It looks as if compliance is zeroed out and enforcement is increased dramatically, but it is a combination of the two functions 

together for efficiencies, and with the total increase of expenditure 

for the two categories combined of $27 million. But I have asked 

that that information be submitted for the record so that we all 

have the same information. I want to make sure my interpretation 

is correct. 

I’ll yield back. 

Mr. REED. Thank you for the clarification. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Reed, would you yield? 

Mr. REED. Yes, I will yield. 

Mr. GIBBS. I am looking at a document here—I guess I will ad- dress Ms. Stoner. It looks like the $27.5 million increase is all for 

enforcement. It is in monitoring programs, increase the number of 

inspections, and new enforcement paradigm. So the increase is all 

enforcement. Is that correct? 

Ms. STONER. I don’t know, Mr. Chairman. But we will get back 

to the committee on that. 

Mr. GIBBS. Submit it to the record. Thank you. 

Mr. REED. OK. Thank you for that clarification because where 

the money is and the increases in the money, I mean, obviously is 

an indication of what the policy of the EPA and the Office of Water 

will be on it. 

I just want to hear from you, as the director. Do you feel that 

compliance is still a primary role or a secondary role? What role 

in the Agency do you see it? 

Ms. STONER. Obviously, compliance is very important. And we 

are working very hard to try to make sure that we are getting information out, including through the States that run most of the 

Clean Water Act programs; that we are working with local governments. 

We understand that times are tough and that people are trying 

to figure out the most cost-effective ways to meet their obligations 

under the Clean Water Act and to make sure their waterways are 

safe for the public. We view that as one of our principal missions, 

to work with communities to do that. 

Mr. REED. OK. And in regards to its relationship to enforcement, 

do you see it as the same level of importance, or do you see it as 

a priority over enforcement? What comes first, compliance or enforcement, from your perspective? 

Ms. STONER. Well, temporally, often, compliance assistance 

comes first. For new requirements, often we are in a position of 

compliance assistance early on, outreach compliance assistance, 

and so forth. The enforcement tool is used for different kinds of situations than compliance assistance in a lot of cases. So we view 

them as two complimentary tools used for different circumstances. 

Mr. REED. And then—I have got about a minute left here—the 

Executive order that was issued on January 18, 2011, talked about 

33 

using the least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. I 

don’t know if this was asked previously. Was it asked previously? 

No? 

OK. How do you intend to accomplish that? And I will start with 

you, Ms. Stoner, and then we will go to—— 

Ms. STONER. Yes. We are working Agency-wide to gather information from the public about what we should do. We are planning 

listening sessions in every office and across the Agency. And we are 

in the process of reviewing our regulations to identify regulations 

that meet the criteria of the memo that you referred to. 

Mr. REED. The least burdensome standard? 

Ms. STONER. There are actually lots of different things in there 

about different ways. But it is all about streamlining, regulation, 

making it more cost-effective, and so forth. And those are the kinds 

of opportunities we are looking for. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. We are doing the same. 

Mr. REED. You are doing the same? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. 

Mr. REED. All right. I guess I am out of time, so I will yield back 

to the chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Representative Cravaack, you have a question? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being 

here today. 

I live in Minnesota, the land of 10,000 lakes, and I hear a lot 

from our constituents. And I have a question to ask you. Who do 

you work for? I know what Agency you work for, but who is your 

overall—who do you work for—— 

Ms. STONER. Well, my salary is paid—— 

Mr. CRAVAACK. No, no, no. Who does the EPA work for? 

Ms. STONER. I was going to say the public. The American taxpayer pays my salary, sir. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. OK. And I agree with you. I work for the American public, too, and this is what the American public is telling me. 

The American public is telling me that the EPA is overreaching. It 

is regulating—it is legislating by regulating. 

I have a question for you. We have a very large lake in the middle of Minnesota; it is called Mille Lacs. Who owns that? Who owns 

that lake? Who is the ultimate authority of that fresh body of 

water? 

Ms. STONER. I am not—I don’t know the answer to that question. 

I don’t know who owns that lake. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Sir, do you? 

Ms. STONER. But I am confident the public uses the lake, but I 

don’t know who owns it. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Sir, who do you believe owns that lake? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Again, I don’t know that—I am assuming it is 

probably a home rule issue and—— 

Mr. CRAVAACK. The 10th Amendment says that the State of Minnesota owns that lake. Federal overreach by the EPA on a body of 

water that has absolutely no regulation for commerce, as we just 

saw most recently with the America’s Commitment to Clean Water 

Act, endorsed by the EPA. 

34 

Now, there are two very significant legislations—or court cases, 

the Swank Agreement and also the Ropanus Agreement. Again, 

Federal overreach by the EPA. From the migratory bird theory, 

where a migratory bird would be able to light upon a body of water, 

it was considered a Federal piece of property. 

This is an extreme overreach by the EPA. And I am challenging 

the EPA to step back and reassess who their boss is. Their boss is 

the American to people, just as who my boss is as well. 

I would like to see a statement from you stating how the EPA 

is partnering with the people of the United States of America—instead of legislating by over-regulating, how they are partnering 

with them to assist in that we all want clean water. And I can tell 

you what: The independent Minnesotans in the Eighth District of 

Minnesota are more interested in clean water than anybody here 

in this room. 

So my question to you is, how are you partnering with the people 

of America to ensure that you are not overreaching, to ensure you 

are not putting in guidelines that are just absolutely ridiculous, 

like our colleague here in regarding milk? Why does it take 7 years 

and $27 million to push projects through the EPA—we have open 

pit mining in our area, and mining in general, and it’s the EPA watershed. Could you tell me that? 

If you can’t do it in 1 minute and 57 seconds, I understand. But 

I would like to have your comments on record on saying how the 

EPA is working with the American people instead of against the 

American people. 

Ms. STONER. I appreciate that. And we actually take very seriously our obligation and responsibility to hear from the public on 

these issues. We do, as I mentioned, have a lot of different forums 

in which we obtain information from the public. We also work 

through our regional offices, where we have additional ability to 

reach out to people. 

We view that as a very significant part of our work, is to ensure 

that what we are doing is benefitting the public, benefitting the 

public’s use of the waterways, and hearing their concerns not only 

about clean water but how we achieve it. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Well, I ask you, then, ma’am, in issuing guidance 

instead of the rule, for the Administrative Procedure Act requirements regarding this, it actually almost violates what President 

Obama has come out for open and transparency. And yet here we 

go. You are legislating again through regulating. You don’t have 

open comment for the American people. 

Ms. STONER. On the particular guidance I think you are referring 

to, which is currently pending at the OMB, that guidance will go 

out for public comment. It will not be immediately effective, and we 

will be looking for input from the American public. We would be 

delighted to talk with you and your staff about it as well. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you very much, ma’am. I appreciate that. 

And I will yield back my 22 seconds. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Representative Bucshon, do you have a question? 

Dr. BUCSHON. Just for your information, your budget for 2008 was around $7.6 billion. And in 2010 it was $10.3 billion, which is 

an increase of almost $3 billion in a 2-year period; in addition to 

35 

the fact that in that same timeframe, the EPA acquired $7.2 billion 

in stimulus dollars. 

So that is kind of where you are funding-wise. And so your cur- rent request of $8.973 billion is actually a significant increase from 

2 years ago. And I think, anyway, that is where the numbers lie. 

Being from southwestern Indiana and the State of Indiana, our 

electrical energy depends on the coal industry. And I know Chairman Gibbs has touched, before I came to the meeting, on the permitting process for mining operations and the one that was recently retracted. 

And the question I have is, as you probably know, the company that was responsible for that mine is losing $250 million because 

of that move. And I would like to know that if the EPA is going 

to retroactively pull permits and cause problems for American business, what are we planning on doing to reimburse businesses when 

this is, again, another indication of retroactive, I think, policymaking through regulation, based on the fact that people have, and 

the President has said, a negative view on the coal industry, including a statement made by the President, and I am paraphrasing, that you can build another coal-powered plant, but we 

will bankrupt you. 

So I would like to know how the EPA is planning to put regulations in place—how are we going to reimburse private industry out 

there if the agenda that we have here in Washington, DC, is to create jobs and not to stop them? Because the State of Indiana, if you 

decide suddenly in my district to retroactively pull back permits, 

we want our money back. 

Ms. STONER. Thank you for that question, Congressman. Both of 

my parents are Hoosiers, so it is always nice to see someone from 

the great State of Indiana. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Probably not me, but someone. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. STONER. My mother actually has a farm in southwestern Indiana. 

But I appreciate your question about the coal mining. Let me 

just say that from the standpoint of the Office of Water, we have 

no opposition to coal mining or any particular kind of coal mining. 

Our role is solely to protect waterways. 

And that is what we were looking at in that permit veto that you 

referenced, the Spruce Mine veto, is merely our obligations under 

the Clean Water Act to protect those waterways. We felt like that 

we needed to take that action to protect those waterways, and 

that’s the action that we took. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Can I say that how come in the original permitting 

process that the EPA didn’t identify the waterway issue up front 

before the company investing $250 million in the business? 

Ms. STONER. EPA and the Fish and Wildlife Service were involved in commenting on that permit in the initial commenting 

process as well, and expressed concerns at that time as well. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Then how come the permit was issued? That is my 

question. You know, you have to understand that in my district, 

with all the coal mines and other things, with farming—the Clean 

Water Act comes into play there also, as you know—that I have not 

heard from one constituent, not one, that what EPA is currently 

36 

doing with the Clean Water Act is helping create jobs, getting people back to work, and spurring the economy. 

In fact, people have grave concerns in my district about what it 

is going to do for jobs going forward. And if EPA has initially commented, then grants a permit, and then a company loses millions 

of dollars and you can just pull that at any time, I have got serious 

concerns about that. 

And I want to know how, if the EPA is going to do that, out of the $7.2 billion in stimulus money you had, you would think that 

you would have enough money, maybe, to reimburse the industry 

that lost that money. 

The other thing is, as a general question, what did the EPA do with $7.2 billion in stimulus money? 

Ms. STONER. We used those funds to assist local communities in 

addressing clean water problems, drinking water problems, and in 

creating jobs. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Excuse me. I don’t mean to interrupt. But can you 

submit to the committee an itemization of the uses, specific uses, 

of $7.2 billion in stimulus money? I would like to see an itemized 

statement on exactly what that was used for, whether that was 

used to expand the size and scope of the EPA or whether that was 

actually used for what you said, for job creating. Because I would 

like to see—I would really like to see that in money, what the 

money was used for. 

I mean, you have to recognize that that amount of money was 

almost as much as the entire budget for 2008. 

Ms. STONER. We would be happy to submit information on the 

uses of the ARRA. It was not used for the Agency’s budget, but 

rather, to give funding to other entities to meet—— 

Dr. BUCSHON. I understand. I just want to see it myself. 

Ms. STONER. We would be happy to do that. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Back my series of questions for Ms. Stoner. Dealing with the 

sewage sludge incineration and, of course, this comes under our 

purview a little bit because of the sewage sludge, but last week the 

EPA issued new regulations outlining a definition of nonhazardous 

solid waste. The new definition would result in significant restrictions on the ability of publicly owned treatment works to generate 

electricity from those biosolids. 

Biosolids generated by the public works have the potential to 

generate as much as 10 percent of our electricity consumption for 

our country, and is a renewable source of electricity. Did the EPA 

examine this issue as part of its rulemaking process? And why 

would the EPA allow the burning of tires to be considered as an 

allowable fuel stock and not the burning of biosolids? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I can talk about my office’s aspect of the 

rule. The Clean Air Act rule is under the Office of Air and Radiation. 

In our rule, we did take a look at the use of biosolids as far as 

fuel use, and we identified the circumstance under which it can be 

used. And there are a few facilities in this country that currently 

use that, but we didn’t lay out a criteria for the use of manure, for 

its use as a fuel. 

37 

Mr. GIBBS. My next question—would you care to answer, Ms. 

Stoner, on that? 

Ms. STONER. No, sir. I don’t have anything to add to that. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Thank you. 

Also on the clean water intake structures, Ms. Stoner, there was 

individual permits—States have standards for individual permits 

on specific cost-based analysis studies that were upheld by the 

United States Supreme Court. And it is my understanding the 

Agency will propose to issue new rules that will severely limit the 

site-specific analysis. This will likely increase the cost to customers 

and diminish the reliability of service. 

Why does the EPA believe the current program to be inadequate? 

Ms. STONER. Mr. Chairman, we will be issuing a proposed rule 

in March on the cooling waters, and we will be tailoring that proposal to take into account site-specific information, as you suggest. 

Mr. GIBBS. What kind of improvements should we expect in that 

rulemaking? 

Ms. STONER. It hasn’t yet been cleared to be released. But I am 

anticipating that we will allow consideration of different factors in 

different places of the country. 

Mr. GIBBS. It is also my understanding that there was some litigation on this issue. Is that correct? 

Ms. STONER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. Was there a settlement with the litigants? 

Ms. STONER. Yes, sir. It is being promulgated under a schedule 

pursuant to a settlement with the litigants. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. As part of the agreement, did the EPA help pay for 

the costs to the litigants? 

Ms. STONER. I don’t know the answer in this specific case. But 

they are entitled to costs under the law if they prevail. 

Mr. GIBBS. That is interesting. But there wasn’t—was there a judicial order requiring this? 

Ms. STONER. I think that the current schedule is due to a settlement. But there certainly have been cases, including all the way 

up to the Supreme Court, about this issue. And so the Agency has 

been working to promulgate rules for many years, and has had, I 

think, all of them challenged and subject to litigation. 

Mr. GIBBS. What about this specific matter, though? 

Ms. STONER. I think it is on remand right now. 

Mr. GIBBS. Pardon me? I couldn’t hear you. 

Ms. STONER. I believe it is on remand. We are doing this rulemaking pursuant to a remand, I believe. 

Mr. GIBBS. I guess, to follow up a little bit more, was there anything driven for the EPA to have to pay for those litigants’ cost? 

How was that determined for the EPA to pay for those costs? 

Ms. STONER. There is a provision of the Clean Water Act that entitles litigants to obtain attorney’s fees and costs in matters in 

which they sue the Agency and prevail. 

Mr. GIBBS. I guess my concern is you settled it, but there wasn’t 

a judicial order requiring it. And I think, under the law, there has 

to be a judicial order. I don’t think the EPA has the authority to 

move forward on their own on that. Is that correct? 

Ms. STONER. Settlements often have attorney’s fees and costs in 

it. If you would like me to get specific information about this parVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:13 Oct 12, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\3-2-11~1\65482.TXT JEAN
38 

ticular matter and how the attorney’s fees issues were handled, I 

could do that. I don’t know that answer. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. I would like to have a written response on that. 

Thank you. 

Is there any other questions? Yes, go ahead, Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two things. One, I see 

that Mr. Bucshon has just left. And I appreciated his request to 

Ms. Stoner for a breakout of the $7.4 billion that went to the Environmental Protection Agency as a result of the Recovery Act. 

I would point out that the vast majority of that money went to 

the States for the State Revolving Funds. I would also point out 

that that information, a specific delineation of where every dollar 

went, what projects were undertaken, and how many jobs were created as a result of those projects was a component of the T&I Committee website until such time as the majority changed hands, and 

then that information came down. 

It is several hundred pages worth of information. It is available. 

And I think it is important for all of us to look at it again so that 

we all have the same information available to us as we evaluate. 

I want to go to an area—you know, as I said before, I represent 

a coastal district. The principal industries of our district are travel 

and tourism, everything associated with the second home industry, 

farming, and fishing—in other words, a district that is dependent 

on clean air and clean water for its economic vitality. 

And I perhaps have the luxury of representing a district where 

everyone in the district recognizes that the environment is the 

economy and the economy is the environment. And Republicans 

and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, all agree that an imperative we have is to see to it that our actions are consistent with 

protecting our environment. 

And so I know it is now I guess I would say fashionable, if not 

required, to not use the term ‘‘regulation’’ inside the Beltway unless it is preceded by the phrase ‘‘job-killing.’’ But in my district, 

regulations, frankly, are welcomed by Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, because they recognize that regulations are 

moving us forward in terms of our ability to have an economy that 

sustains our location. 

So my question to either of you is: Is my district unique? Is there 

any other district in the United States that recognizes the importance of environmental regulation, and recognizes that, in fact, to 

be pro-environment is to be decidedly pro-business? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I will give it a shot. We believe we laid 

out rules and regulations that do, in fact, integrate environmental 

protection and economic development. And I have noted a number 

of them in my opening statements. 

For example, Brownfields resources do in fact lead to cleanup, 

protection of public health, and redevelopment and job creation. 

Our experience in the Superfund program is similar in terms of the 

protection of the public. We believe that it can and must link environmental protection and economic development. We believe we are 

moving forward with that balanced approach. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

39 

Ms. STONER. Let me just give one example from Cleveland, 

where Cleveland is addressing a problem of 5 billion gallons of untreated sewage that has been discharged into Lake Erie every year. 

And EPA recently reached an agreement with the city to invest 

in a combined sewer overflow control, including a green infrastructure, and the sewer district in Cleveland estimates that the total 

investment will lead to more than 30,000 jobs in the Cleveland 

area and return $2.63 for every dollar invested there. So I think 

that is an example of what you are looking for. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. And I want to be clear. I am not suggesting that every regulation is one that we ought to embrace or 

that every regulation is well-thought-out. I think, as Chairman Rahall said—or, pardon me, Ranking Member Rahall—said in his 

opening statement, that the challenge before us is to find the appropriate balance. And I believe we have found that balance in my 

district, and I hope that we can find it in districts across the country. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. I just want to comment and maybe lead into a question. In the President’s proposed budget on this, the areas he is 

cutting are areas that help incentivize and assist entities and public entities to make environmental improvements, and the areas 

where you are increasing your spending is in the compliance and 

the enforcement. So I think that is a clear delineation, you know, 

difference. 

And it has always been my thought—I have been self-employed 

since 1978 in a farming operation. In the years that we were making money, we could think about things to improve waterways and 

buffer strips and all that on the farm. But the years when the hog 

prices went south, we were totally focused on staying in business 

and paying the bills. 

And what I am hearing from my business people, and even public entities, too, is that the overlap of regulations and the burdensome compliance costs are hindering them. So we are not getting 

it done for the goal that we all want, to improve the environment. 

And so I guess, simply put, what I would like to see happen is 

where we would have either a public entity or a private entity, 

when they are doing their day-to-day work, and they have to comply with regulatory—whatever they are doing, to say, hey, this 

makes sense, we ought to be doing this, versus, why the heck are 

we doing this? 

And I think that is what I am hearing from a lot of businesses. 

There is no cost/benefit analysis, and they are just getting slapped 

higher and higher on costs, and they will actually go backwards. 

Because most people want to do the right thing. 

And do you concur that most people do want to do the right 

thing? 

Ms. STONER. Absolutely. People respond to incentives. And if you 

have the right incentives, most people want to do the right thing. 

And everybody loves clean water. That is true. 

Mr. GIBBS. But would you also concur that the budget that has 

been sent to us from the President and your administration, it is 

increasing enforcement actions and it is cutting the incentive acVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:13 Oct 12, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\3-2-11~1\65482.TXT JEAN
40 

tion, and, you know, that just goes counter to what we are discussing. 

Ms. STONER. I completely agree that you need a variety of tools 

to reach people. Outreach and education can reach a lot of people, 

and that is the preferred tool to reach people, if possible. Enforcement is a different tool for different people, and for some people it 

is necessary. 

Mr. GIBBS. I am going to move on to ask if there are any more 

questions. 

Representative Cravaack? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. In Minnesota 

it is timber, taconite, and tourism. Now, I can understand, with 

some of the statements that you spoke of, but I can also guarantee 

you that people in Minnesota are most interested in clean water, 

because they live there. That is truly the important thing to bring 

back here. 

And once again, the Federal overreach of telling us how to conduct our business within the State on non-navigable waters is 

something I am very concerned about. Could you give me what 

your definition is of ‘‘navigable’’? 

Now, I would like to know what, in the Clean Water Act—by the 

way, do we have a copy of the Clean Water Act jurisdiction guidance? 

Ms. STONER. It is currently pending at OMB. It will be out for 

public review, including congressional review, once it’s—— 

Mr. CRAVAACK. I would like to have a copy of that, if you don’t 

mind. 

Ms. STONER. I can make that request of the OMB. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. OK, I would—I demand a copy of it. So if you 

would, please. 

The reason why I ask that question is this. Because of guidance 

in our forest industry, there has been pressure upon agencies within the government to comply with certain—even though they are 

guidances, comply with certain restrictions and regulations that 

are putting small loggers out of business, because they simply don’t 

have the money to do it. 

So, be very careful when you say ‘‘guidance.’’ Because I would 

like to know, is this guidance, therefore, going to become mandatory? 

Ms. STONER. A guidance is an interpretation of the statutes and 

the regulations. It is never mandatory. It is actually always subject 

to—it’s just advice, so we can—and it—— 

Mr. CRAVAACK. So the EPA will not pressure anyone into following this guidance. Do I have your word on that? 

Ms. STONER. It’s our—— 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Is that on the record? 

Ms. STONER. It’s our interpretation of the statutes and the regulations. The statutes and the regulations are what is binding. So 

it provides information and advice about how we interpret the statutes and the regulations. The statutes and the regulations control. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Well, I can tell you how all that guidance has affected timber industry in the State of Minnesota, not positively. 

41 

Second thing is I would like to know what the—since I have not 

had access to the Clean Water Act jurisdiction guidance, I would 

like to know what the definition is of ‘‘navigable.’’ 

Ms. STONER. ‘‘Waters of the U.S.’’ is the term that’s in the Clean 

Water Act to define navigable waters. There are regulations that 

specify how that has been defined. Those regulations have been in 

place for several decades. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. OK. So are we just talking about navigable waters that conduct commerce? Or are we talking about all waters of 

the United States? 

Ms. STONER. The definition includes navigable, in fact, waters 

and other waters that have a relationship to traditionally navigable 

waters. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. So are you talking about sloughs? Are you talking about wetlands? What are you talking about here? 

Ms. STONER. A lot of those elements are reflected in the regulations, sir. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. So, again, we go back to the overreach of the Federal Government, interfering with States and their waters that are 

considered non-navigable. 

I would contest to you that a wetland is not a navigable water. 

And I would also contest that you are—once again, the EPA is 

overreaching. We are going back to Swank. We are going back to 

the Ropanus Agreement, that—already struck down twice by the 

Supreme Court. You are overreaching. The EPA is overreaching 

and interfering with states’ rights, states’ waters. And I am very 

concerned about this guidance that you are putting out. If this is 

the direction that the EPA is going in, you are going to have a hard 

fight from people from Minnesota. So that is my statement to you. 

And I would like to see a copy of the Clean Water Act jurisdiction 

guidance. I think this is an overreach, and I will—I look forward 

to that information, and I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Thank you. I think—do you have—go ahead, 

Representative Harris. 

Dr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. Ms. Stoner, I just want to follow up with, I think, the questioning that we ended with last time. 

In the supposition that we pass the—that these TMDLs get promulgated and the watershed improvement plans get approved and 

all, and the local jurisdiction doesn’t comply, they can’t comply, 

they just don’t have the money, what happens? What’s the backstop to that? They just can’t do it, it’s just too expensive. 

Ms. STONER. We are working very hard with State and local entities to ensure that they are able to meet the—— 

Dr. HARRIS. Ms. Stoner—— 

Ms. STONER. But the—— 

Dr. HARRIS. Ms. Stoner, the supposition they can’t, the local jurisdiction can’t afford that mandate. Anne Arundel County can’t afford the $1.87 billion mandate. There are no Federal funds, or a 

very small amount of Federal funds, very small amount of State 

funds. 

Very specific question. What’s the EPA’s plan from that point? 

Do they go in and try to enforce a court order to force a local jurisdiction to raise the taxes to provide—to implement the plans? 

42 

What’s the EPA’s plans in the not-unlikely circumstance that the 

local jurisdiction simply can’t afford to comply? 

Ms. STONER. Congressman, the watershed implementation plans 

actually came from the States. They figured out what they could 

do in order to meet the obligations of the TMDL. 

Dr. HARRIS. Ms. Stoner—— 

Ms. STONER. And that’s what we would be looking for them to 

do. 

Dr. HARRIS. I—so the EPA will take no action. Is that your answer? The EPA will take no action, because you said the States are 

in charge. Is it your testimony the EPA will take no action against 

a local jurisdiction or a State, if the local jurisdiction can’t afford 

to comply? 

Ms. STONER. We will look at the facts and circumstances at that 

time to determine what’s appropriate. 

Dr. HARRIS. Ms. Stoner, the facts are simple. The local jurisdiction doesn’t have the money to comply, and ask me—another set 

of suppositions. It’s a very simple statement. I have met with my 

local jurisdictions. They tell me, ‘‘We can’t afford to comply.’’ There 

is not enough Federal money, there is not enough State money. 

It’s a very simple question. What’s the EPA’s plans? Are they 

going to take the local jurisdictions to court in order to force an increase in property taxes? Because we can’t create money. Only in 

Washington we create money. My local towns and counties can’t do 

it. They don’t have the same ability we have here in Washington. 

What’s the EPA’s plans? Will the EPA—is it your testimony today 

that they will not take action against the local jurisdiction? 

Ms. STONER. It’s my testimony that we will look at the facts and 

circumstances at that time. 

Dr. HARRIS. So you cannot tell me what will happen if a local— 

see, Ms. Stoner, this is why these local jurisdictions are so afraid 

of the EPA. This is why they get emotional about it. Because 

they’re faced with bureaucrats from the EPA who won’t even tell 

them what they’re going to do in the very real-world circumstance 

that they can’t afford to do what the EPA is forcing them to do. 

And, Ms. Stoner, your testimony reinforces that impression. Because this is a very simple question. I want to go back to my local 

jurisdiction and tell them why they shouldn’t be afraid of the EPA, 

and your answer is, ‘‘Well, we won’t promise that we won’t take 

them to court and force them to raise property taxes,’’ or, ‘‘We 

won’t promise that we’re going to go in there and force them to do 

something.’’ 

Is that your testimony, that you can’t say whether you’re going 

to—what you’re going to do? 

Ms. STONER. We can’t decide in advance what we are going to do 

for a particular situation. But we will be involved in discussing it 

with those local jurisdictions if—in the event that they have difficulty meeting those obligations. There are a number of mechanisms of flexibility within the Clean Water Act. There are opportunities to discuss those. And we will work with communities to ensure that they are able to meet their obligations, and to clean up 

the Chesapeake. 

Dr. HARRIS. Ms. Stoner, are you going to send them money to— 

when you say, ‘‘We’re going to help them make sure they can meet 

43 

those obligations,’’ Ms. Stoner, it takes money. It’s a huge unfunded 

mandate. The local jurisdictions don’t have the money. You are not 

going to have the money. We’re broke. 

Ms. Stoner, the Federal Government is broke. Where is the 

money going to come from to pay for those things? 

Ms. STONER. The President has sought, in an increase in funding 

for the Chesapeake Bay in his fiscal year 2012 budget to help communities like the ones you’re talking about. 

Dr. HARRIS. $17 million, Ms. Stoner. That’s the President’s increase. Anne Arundel County alone has a fiscal year 2012 share— 

that’s one of my 12 counties, I am only one part of the State of 

Maryland, that’s only one part of the six States plus DC—their 

share alone is $200 million. I love that kind of generosity out of the 

Federal Government, but I’m afraid my local jurisdiction is going, 

‘‘Oh, my God, this is coming our way.’’ So, Ms. Stoner, if you think $17 million is all it’s going to take 

to help the fiscal year 2012 State and local governments to fulfill 

their watershed improvement plans or implementation plans— 

WIPs, whatever they are—I’m afraid you don’t get it. 

Ms. STONER. We are also working—— 

Dr. HARRIS. Thank you. 

Ms. STONER [continuing]. With other Federal partners to help 

them, as well. 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, you know, I think I’m going to follow up just 

a little bit on Representative Harris. You know, obviously, since the 

Clean Water Act has been in effect in the 1970s, we have made 

great strides in this country on point source pollution, even 

nonpoint source pollution. 

And you know, I think he is making a good point here. I have 

seen it. You come in, EPA comes in to a local public entity, and 

they want to do the right thing, but the EPA doesn’t seem to want 

to work with that public entity, and what they will do, they will 

actually file a lawsuit against them, and actually add cost and put 

fines on them, and you just get into a—you know, a litigation that 

doesn’t solve anything. 

So I guess my question is, you know, what—has the EPA given 

any thought to, when you’re looking at the regulations and where 

that—a municipality might be at, and what they’re trying to do, 

and what maybe they can do in the short run without charging the 

rate payers so much money that nobody can afford it, and they 

can’t afford it, and set up a plan to how they can get there in a 

reasonable time period, and work with them, but instead, it seems 

like the EPA just wants to go in and start fining them, or litigation. 

So, is there any flexibility, any show of flexibility to work with 

the public entity to develop a plan that’s reasonable that they can 

agree on? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, what I will promise to do is get information from the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 

There is a longstanding practice where ability to pay is considered, where the circumstances are looked at, in terms of a compliance schedule. And we have done that for years. So, in terms of 

how that is considered, I am not the expert in that. But we do, in 

fact, look at those kind of issues. And we are currently in conversaVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:13 Oct 12, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\3-2-11~1\65482.TXT JEAN
44 

tion with local government—I know in respect to my shop—with 

ability to pay in a certain circumstance. 

Mr. GIBBS. Do you want to respond, Ms.—— 

Ms. STONER. We have the same thing, in terms of ability-to-pay 

polices that we look at, in terms of what communities can afford 

to do. 

The other point about the Chesapeake Bay is that the watershed 

implementation plans that were submitted by the States are for 

implementation through 2025. So there is a period of time to 

spread out those investments that need to be made to clean up the 

bay. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, would you yield? 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes, go ahead. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I don’t pretend to be as familiar with the 

issue as Mr. Harris is, but it seems to me—my understanding is 

that a significant component of the TMDL compliance issue will be 

met by improving and/or expanding waste water treatment capability. And so, if I understand the issue correctly, it seems to me 

that the issue that’s being described is an open and shut argument 

for not cutting the SRF. 

And, as I said before, I am opposed to the President’s cuts to the 

SRF, and I am opposed to the cuts that were included in H.R. 1. 

I think that there are few things we can do to improve water quality more important than seeing to it that our communities dispose 

of their waste in a fashion that is environmentally responsible and, 

as I said before, in a fashion that enhances economic growth. 

And so, again, I will defer to your knowledge, sir, of the specific 

situation. But it seems to me that we are at cross purposes. We are 

saying that we need more money to handle an issue with respect 

to TMDL and, at the same time, we are cutting the source of the 

funding that would help localities handle that issue. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Reed, do you have a quick question? We’re going 

to wrap this up here, soon. 

Mr. REED. Yes, thank you. I just have a quick question. Ms. 

Stoner, you’re familiar with the recent article in the New York 

Times? I think it was on February 26, 2011, about hydro-fracturing, and that article that was prepared. Are you familiar with 

that article? 

Ms. STONER. Yes. 

Mr. REED. In that article, it cites that thousands of documents 

were provided to the New York Times from the EPA. Was that 

something you’re aware of? 

Ms. STONER. My understanding is there were documents provided under the Freedom of Information Act, that’s correct. 

Mr. REED. OK. So all those documents that were provided were 

in response to a Freedom of Information request. 

Ms. STONER. I actually am not sure that that’s the case. I know 

that there was a Freedom of Information Act request, and documents were provided pursuant to that. I’m not sure whether other 

documents were also provided. 

Mr. REED. OK. So you’re not aware of any other documents that 

were released from the EPA outside of the Freedom of Information 

45 

request protocols in regards to this article or any articles related 

to it. 

Ms. STONER. I’m just not sure. 

Mr. REED. OK. Mr. Stanislaus, are you aware of that report or 

this article? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I am. 

Mr. REED. You are? And are you aware of any reports or documents that were released from the EPA to the New York Times, 

outside of any Freedom of Information Request? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I am not. 

Mr. REED. OK, OK. Can you check on that, Ms. Stoner? If you 

are not aware of it, can you—I would like to make sure that any 

requests that are going—or any information that is going out of the 

EPA is following the procedures of the Freedom of Information request, and that there is not internal documents that are being 

leaked to—it’s a concern of mine, and you promise me you will follow up that—— 

Ms. STONER. We certainly will check on that. I will tell you that 

it is a concern of mine, that—making sure that documents are not 

leaked from the EPA and the office of water. We need to have internal deliberative processes, and not have our documents published in the press. So I absolutely agree with the concern that you 

are expressing. 

Mr. REED. OK. I appreciate that. And then, on the article itself, 

do you have any concerns about any of the comments that were expressed in the article about any of the concerns that were highlighted there? 

Ms. STONER. As I mentioned earlier, we have heard a lot from 

the public about concerns with drinking water, with discharges into 

surface waters associated with hydro-fracking. The article was focused on radiation—or nuclear—— 

Mr. REED. Yes, radiation. 

Ms. STONER. Yes, right. And that’s one area. There is one area. 

There is others that we have heard from the public about. We are 

evaluating all of those. We are gathering science through the office 

of research and development, and evaluating those concerns to 

make sure we are protecting public health and the environment 

from any potential impacts from hydro-fracking. 

Mr. REED. OK. So you are following up on those concerns. How 

about the waste impact, from your point of view? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, it’s something that we are following. See, 

we’ve gotten similar requests, in terms of how the way this is handled. 

I mean currently, as the article notes, it’s been handled through 

State programs that have requested for EPA to take a look. And 

we’re kind of looking at that. 

Mr. REED. And in regards to looking at it, what are you looking 

at, in regards to that? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, we have gotten requests as to whether 

there is any jurisdictional role. Right now, per congressional mandate, there is not a jurisdictional role in that right now. 

Mr. REED. OK. Are you exploring trying to expand that jurisdictional role? 

46 

Mr. STANISLAUS. We are not. We are responding to a petition to 

look at what role we have, and whether we need to continue. I 

should note that we cannot act without congressional action. 

Mr. REED. Sure, absolutely. So there is no priority, from your 

perspective, to expand that in your department? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. No. We are evaluating that. And the particular 

provision in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requires 

congressional action for that to change. 

Mr. REED. OK, good. So you recognize that—— 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. 

Mr. REED [continuing]. And you will abide by that. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, yes. 

Mr. REED. OK. Thank you. Nothing further. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Harris, do you have a question? 

Dr. HARRIS. Thank you. Just a very brief question. And I appreciate the comments of my colleague, the ranking member. But, pardon the pun, I suspect that the amount of Federal funding is a proverbial drop in the bucket. 

Ms. Stoner, is the—did the Agency—and you will probably have 

to get back to me on this—estimate the total cost of compliance in 

the entire watershed, Chesapeake watershed region, of compliance 

with the TMDL regulations. 

Again, and I would like—appreciate it broken down by public 

and private sources, because again, you know, we have two counties that did pilot plans—Anne Arundel County, $1.87 billion, 

that’s just for one county, and that’s only for the public, that’s only 

what the county is responsible for, not—and some counties have 

municipalities, of course, and of course the private cost to landowners for compliance. 

So, if you could just get back to me. Do you think—well, has the 

Agency done that? Has the Agency come up with a total cost? 

Ms. STONER. There may be such a cost. 

Dr. HARRIS. If you could do that, I would appreciate that. Because then we can put in perspective what that, you know, $17 million increase that the President put in the budget, you know, where 

that compares with the total cost of what we’re talking about to not 

only our local governments, but also to our private industries. 

So, thank you very much. And thank you, again, for coming to 

testify. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. That’s going to conclude the first hearing 

of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee. We will 

be meeting next week, and we will be looking at the budgets of the 

Army Corps of Engineers. We are concluded. 

[Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

47 


Insert offset folio 8 here 65482.008
48 


Insert offset folio 9 here 65482.009
49 


Insert offset folio 10 here 65482.010
50 


Insert offset folio 11 here 65482.011
51 


Insert offset folio 12 here 65482.012
52 


Insert offset folio 13 here 65482.013
53 


Insert offset folio 14 here 65482.014
54 


Insert offset folio 15 here 65482.015
55 


Insert offset folio 16 here 65482.016
56 


Insert offset folio 17 here 65482.017
57 


Insert offset folio 18 here 65482.018
58 


Insert offset folio 19 here 65482.019
59 


Insert offset folio 20 here 65482.020
60 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 21 here 65482.021