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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–871 PDF 2005

AGENCY BUDGETS AND PRIORITIES

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

(109–3)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

FEBRUARY 16, 2005

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

CONNIE MACK, Florida

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

VACANCY

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, Chairman

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

GARY G. MILLER, California

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

TED POE, Texas

CONNIE MACK, Florida

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana,

Vice-Chair

VACANCY

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Page

Dunne, Hon. Thomas P., Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste

and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ................. 7

Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H., Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .............................................................................. 7

Spinrad, Dr. Richard W., Assistant Administrator, National Ocean Service,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration .......................................... 7

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Bishop, Hon. Tim, of New York .............................................................................. 34

Miller, Gary G., of California .................................................................................. 67

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 68

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Dunne, Hon. Thomas P. .......................................................................................... 35

Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H .................................................................................. 41

Spinrad, Dr. Richard W ........................................................................................... 74

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Dunne, Hon. Thomas P., Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste

and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Delaware

River Oil Spill Fact Sheet ................................................................................... 29

Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H., Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, responses to questions from Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson ......................................................................................................... 53

Spinrad, Dr. Richard W., Assistant Administrator, National Ocean Service,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, responses to questions

from Rep. Richard H. Baker ................................................................................ 83

(1)

AGENCY BUDGETS AND PRIORITIES FOR

FISCAL YEAR 2006

Wednesday, February 16, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, WASHINGTON,

D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in room 2167,

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Duncan [chairman of

the subcommittee] presiding.

Mr. DUNCAN. I want to welcome everyone to this first meeting

of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee in the

109th Congress. With this new Congress, I am pleased that I have

a new Ranking Member, one of my best friends in the Congress,

Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson.

I have had the privilege of developing some really close friendships with the Ranking Members that I have had, both when I

chaired the Aviation Subcommittee and this Subcommittee. I know

that I am certainly looking forward to working with my friend,

Congresswoman Johnson.

We also have several new members on both sides of the aisle. On

our side, we have Congressman Tom Osbourne from Nebraska,

Congressman Ted Poe from Texas, Congressman Connie Mack from

Florida, and Resident Commissioner Lewis Fortun ̃ o, who represents the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Then, of course, we have Congressman Charles Boustany, who

represents the Seventh District of Louisiana, and who is going to

serve as Vice Chairman of the Subcommittee. I would now like to

introduce Congresswoman Johnson to mention her new members.

Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased

to join you as a part of the leadership team for this Subcommittee,

and I could not have had a better leader. In the many years that

I have had the pleasure of working with you on the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure, you have displayed fairness and

a cooperative spirit exceeded by no one. Over the next two years,

I look forward to working closely with you to address the Nation’s

water resources issues.

We on the Democratic side of the aisle are also pleased to have

several new House members on the Subcommittee. Representative

John Salazar represents the Third District of Colorado. He brings

years of first-hand water resource experience from his years in agriculture.

Representative Brian Higgins represents New York’s 27th District, a Congressional District on the Great Lakes, that has been
2

represented on this Committee since at least 1975. Representative

Allison Schwartz represents Pennsylvania’s 13th District, and

brings to the Subcommittee substantial experience from the Pennsylvania State Senate.

Representative Russ Carnahan, I see he has not come in, yet. I

will go ahead and introduce him, even though he has not arrived.

He represents the Third District in Missouri, where he succeeds

former Democratic leader, Richard Gephart and his grandfather,

who also served in the house.

So I am very pleased to welcome all the new members to the

Subcommittee. Hopefully, we will see the successful enactment of

a Water Resources Development Act, and a renewed and invigorated Federal commitment to clean water at Infrastructure this

year. That might be wishing too much, but we will try.

I also look forward to working with you on other issues before

the Subcommittee. Today, the Subcommittee has the opportunity to

discuss the President’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2006 with

representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency and the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

This is the first of two hearings, with representatives of the

Corps of Engineers and other agencies within this Subcommittee’s

jurisdiction testifying on March 10th.

Oversight of executive agency budget’s and priorities is critical to

Congress performing its Constitution responsibilities to ensure the

effectiveness of the programs we create and to meet the expectations of our constituents.

Unfortunately, the witnesses before the Subcommittee today will

have a difficult time convincing me that this budget adequately

meets the Nation’s needs and expectations for the investment, critical infrastructure, and protection of human environmental health.

But the for EPA, that was before a committee that I was on earlier today, the budget request represents a reduction of over a half

billion dollars, or seven percent; the lion’s share which comes from

cuts to vital water and waste water infrastructure programs.

The Congressional Budget Office, the Water Infrastructure Network, and even EPA itself, have each documented that State and

local governments need as much as $10 billion annually, over and

above currently expenditures, to meet waste water infrastructure

needs over the next 20 years

Yet, this budget proposes to eliminate $370 million in Federal

grants to States for Revolving Loan Funds, as well as to eliminate

$310 million in Federal spending for high priority water, waste

water, and storm water projects.

The Superfund Program fairs no better. Since the beginning of

this Administration, EPA has completed barely one-half of the annual number of Superfund cleanups, when compared to the previous Administration. In just five years, the pace of cleanup has

slowed from an average of 73 sites per year to just over 40.

The budget also proposes that virtually all Federal spending for

the Superfund Program will be from the general taxpayers, and

continues the alarming trend of collecting fewer and fewer cost recoveries from responsible parties. Gone are the days when the

Superfund was a true Polluter Payers’ Program.
3

I know the Subcommittee will hear the explanation that close to

70 percent of the funding is from private parties and, therefore,

‘‘Polluter Pays’’ is still in effect. This ignores that the Superfund

trust fund is also supposed to be ‘‘Polluter Pays.’’ However, this

budget calls for $1.2 billion in general revenues and nothing from

the oil and gas, chemical, or the general business community.

Since the Superfund taxes expired in 1995, the oil and gas chemical and business communities have enjoyed a $4 million a day tax

break, costing the trust fund over $13 billion. Now that the trust

fund is empty, individual taxpayers have been asked to contribute

an additional $3.6 billion to clean up the toxic waste sites of the

Superfund Program.

In January of 2004, EPA’s Inspector General’s Office released a

report highlighting how limited funding for the Superfund Program

has significantly reduced the program’s ability to clean up the Nation’s most toxic sites. This was followed by a statement by a witness today, Mr. Dunne, who suggested that it might be appropriate

to stop adding sites to the Superfund Program because of funding

limitations.

It is disingenuous to blame a lack of resources as the reason for

slowing the pace of cleanup at the same time the Administration

has slowly starved the Superfund trust fund through failing to adequately collect cost recoveries and failing to call for a reinstatement

of the taxes to fund the trust fund.

EPA also argues that a major cause for the decline in cleanups

comes from the fact that many of the larger, more complex Superfund sites are reaching the construction phase, and as a result,

they are placing a greater burden on the total Superfund budget.

Most of these sites have been in the Superfund pipeline for decades. It should come as no surprise that additional cleanup dollars

are required to address the sites. Yet, for at least the past five

years, EPA’s Superfund budget has been declining; failing even to

keep pace with inflation.

Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned at the Administration’s failure to adequately fund other important programs within the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee. The Administration’s budget inadequately funds EPA’s Nonpoint Source Program, despite recognition that nonpoint sources of pollution are the single largest source

of impairment to the Nation’s rivers, lakes, and near coastal waters.

The budget proposes to eliminate the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control

Program, a program that has demonstrated a great potential in improving coastal water quality and reducing the likelihood of unsafe

beach conditions and closures.

The Administration’s budget underfunds the brownfields sites assessment and cleanup programs, while asserting that the budget

fully funds brownfields cleanup. The Brownfields Program is critical to areas such as mine in Dallas County, Texas. Brownfield redevelopment creates jobs and opportunities, while making use of

existing roads, water, and sewage, as well as mass transit.

The President made this his first environmental priority upon

his election. It is really time for us to ask him to fully fund it.
4

Mr. Chairman, we cannot to continue to under-invest in our Nation’s infrastructure or its environment. We have an obligation to

previous generations to take care of the infrastructure and resources that they presented to us, and keep the economy moving

forward. Yet, we also have an obligation for future generations to

provide a cleaner, safer and more secure world for them to live. I

look forward to today’s testimony. Thank you for your attention.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Ms. Johnson. I, too,

look forward to a very productive year. I earlier introduced some

of the new members, but we have been joined by Mr. Fortuno from

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. We are certainly honored to

have you with us. Then also we have some of our great veteran

members: Mr. Gilchrest, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Miller, who have been outstanding members, and Mr. Bishop joined us on the other side.

As for the legislative agenda of this Subcommittee, we will first

focus on completing the Water Resources Development Act of 2005.

We passed this bill through the House in the last Congress with

overwhelming support, but the Senate did not finish its job.

Fortunately, the Senate has already started to work on their

Water Resources Development Act, and I think we will be able to

move this major legislation very quickly, or maybe not very quickly, but fairly quickly and get it to the President some time this

year.

I want to remind all members that the Committee has established a deadline of March 2nd for submission of WRDA requests.

That can be a wide variety of requests. If there is any confusion

about that, come see us.

Our second priority will be to address our Nation’s wastewater

infrastructure needs. I expect we will get into that somewhat at the

hearing today.

The subcommittee also will focus on Good Samaritan legislation

to remove barriers to abandoned mine cleanups and legislation on

controlling invasive species and on improving implementation of

Clean Water Act permit programs.

Today’s subcommittee meeting is a hearing to examine the budgets and priorities of the Environmental Protection Agency and the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Next month, on March 10th, we will hear from the Corps of Engineers which is a major part of the work here, and the work that

the Corps of Engineers does, the Civil Works Program. We will also

have the TVA, the Natural Resources Conversation Service, and

the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.

I, of course, support the President’s efforts to get Federal spending under control. But I think there will be problems with some of

his choices about where to spend the money.

It is inevitable that the Administration’s priorities and Congressional priorities will not always coincide and there will be some

give and take. But for the EPA and NOAA programs that fall within the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee, I like to think that we

have the same goals, protecting our environment in a cost effective

way.

With that goal in mind, I continue to be very surprised that any

Administration would propose cuts to the Clean Water Act SRF
5

Program. This seems to happen every year, no matter who is in the

White House.

But the SRF Program is and has been one of the most cost effective programs in the Government. For every dollar the Federal

Government invests, more than $2 is made available for environmental improvements. In fact, the Federal Government investment

of $22 billion in the SRF has led to the creation of Revolving Loan

Funds totaling $52 billion. That is not pie in the sky money. Those

are actual realistic figures.

In fiscal year 2004 alone, the SRF Program provided over $4.6

billion in loans for sewer upgrades and for other water quality improvements around the country. This sounds like a lot of money,

but as Ms. Johnson said, the needs are even greater.

We have made great improvements. We passed a resolution talking about what we have done since the first Clean Water Act was

passed 30 years ago. But no one wants to go back to the days when

rivers caught on fire. There has to be a shared commitment to

make the needed improvements to our wastewater infrastructure.

That means local, State, and Federal investment in this area must

continue to increase.

For the Superfund Program, the overall budget request of $1.28

billion is $29 million more than the enacted level, but that increase

is not directed for the ground cleanup activities. So we need to look

into that.

There are several other things that we are going to get into, but

I want to get on into this hearing. I will tell you that ordinarily

on this Subcommittee, we give very short opening statements. Ms.

Johnson and I both have gone a little bit longer here today, because this is the first meeting.

Also, for the new members, as a courtesy for those who show up

on time and as a courtesy to our witnesses, I always start this Subcommittee exactly on the minute, if not sooner, unless there is a

vote going on. That is partly because I have been to so many committee and subcommittee meetings that start 15 or 20 minutes

late. Whether it makes any different to you or not, you can count

on this Subcommittee starting right on time.

Does anybody else have any opening statement they wish to

make at this time before we introduce the witness? Yes, go ahead,

Mr. Salazar.

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would first of all like

to recognize you and Ranking Member Johnson for your leadership

on water issues. I am pleased to be a part of this important subcommittee, and I look forward to working with you in the 109th

Congress.

As we look towards the budget priorities of fiscal year 2006, I ask

that each of us here today keep in mind the needs of rural communities throughout America. I am concerned about the proposed

budget impacts of the EPA and its ability to do an effective job.

Local water quality is dramatically impacted by existing water

infrastructure. By cutting funding for programs like the Clean

Water State Revolving Fund, we make it hard for smaller communities, for rural communities, to invest in infrastructure improvements.
6

I understand that this budget requests only $730 million in cap- italization grants for the State Clean Water Programs, or $360 million less than what was allocated in 2005.

As a man who works and lives on the land, I can attest to you,

water is the life blood of many of these communities. Whether it

is for drinking or irrigation needs, we must do what we can to protect our national resources.

Mr. Chairman, I know that we will be hearing from these agencies shortly and I will have an opportunity to ask questions. I just

want to re-emphasize my concern about proposed cuts to the programs that are so important to the States and to the local level.

I thank the witnesses who are here today, and I look forward to

hearing from you and starting a dialogue on these important

issues; thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Salazar. Mr. Miller?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, considering the time, I will just

place my opening statement into the record. That way we can get

closer to testimony.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right, does anybody else have anything? Mr.

Bishop?

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will make a very brief

opening statement. I want to thank you and the Ranking Member

for holding this hearing.

I need to say that I am deeply concerned by the budget proposals

that we are now considering. It seems to be that these proposals

sacrifice the long-term health of our environment and the protection of our coastal communities for what really is nothing more

than short term and insignificant reductions in the deficit.

I am distressed by the Administration’s continuing retreat from

the protection of our environmental resources under the pretense

of expanding economic growth. As someone who represents over

300 miles of coastline and numerous communities that depend on

tourism and a pristine local environment for its economic health,

I fail to see the correlation between decimating our shoreline and

growing the economy.

Many of the proposed cuts will affect members of my constituency on Long Island. This Administration’s budget has specifically

targeted Long Island Sound restoration funding by drastically

slashing this program.

The budget also proposes funding cuts for the National Estuaries

Program throughout the country. My district is home to two estuaries that rely on this funding to maintain their pristine environmental qualities.

The President’s budget message talked about significant spending reductions or outright elimination of programs that are falling

short. So I would ask or I would hope that in the testimony that

we are about to hear, that you will detail for us the specific measures that you have used to determine that certain of these programs, particularly the Long Island Sound Study Program, are falling short of their objectives.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I await the testimony.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. Does anybody else want to

say anything?

[No response.]
7

Mr. DUNCAN. All right, thank you very much, we are then ready

to go to the witnesses. We are pleased to have a very distinguished

panel here this afternoon.

First, we have the Honorable Benjamin H. Grumbles, a former

member of the staff of this Subcommittee, and a very knowledgeable man in this area, who is the Assistant Administrator for

Water at the Environmental Protection Agency.

We have the Honorable Thomas Dunne, who is the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response

from the Environmental Protection Agency.

We have Dr. Richard W. Spinrad, who is the Assistant Administrator of the National Ocean Service of the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration.

Gentlemen, we are pleased to have all three of you with us. Your

full statements will be placed in the record. We ask that witnesses

limit their opening testimony to five minutes. We give you six minutes, but then we cut you off, in courtesy to the other witnesses

and to the members who wish to ask questions.

We always proceed in the order in which the witnesses are listed

on the call of the hearing. That means, Mr. Grumbles, you will go

first.

STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES,

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; THE HONORABLE THOMAS

P. DUNNE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR SOLID

WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY; DR. RICHARD W. SPINRAD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Mr. GRUMBLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, it is always an honor

to appear before the Subcommittee in representing the EPA Office

of Water, in particular. So I am pleased to be here before you, Congresswoman Johnson, and the other members of the Subcommittee,

to talk about the National Water Program and the President’s

budget request for fiscal year 2006.

I would note that this budget is $2.8 billion. It represents approximately 38 percent of the Agency’s budget request. We believe

that it will advance our efforts, and those of our State and local

and Tribal partners, to ensure the Nation’s waters are clean, safe,

and secure.

What I would like to do is focus on a couple of basic points in

the limited amount of time I have. One of them is that there is no

question that a budget requires tough decisions.

So we feel that we are making responsible decisions to put priority on key areas and on core programs. The continued success of

the Clean Water Act relies on continued investments in the infrastructure and watershed-based approaches and regional collaborations.

The budget request includes $231 million in grants under the

Section 106 Program, which is a core program to provide assistance

to the States to administer Clean Water Act authorities.
8

There are three areas I would like to mention, Mr. Chairman,

that I think reflect our priorities in the National Water Program.

One of them is monitoring. The President’s budget request includes $24 million in new money over a two year period. That is specifically $7 million additional funding for fiscal year 2006, specifically for improved water

quality monitoring to help States, localities, the Agency, and the

American public understand the status and trends of the Nation’s

water quality and to be able to make smart decisions with limited

resources, and where to get priorities and what areas to focus on.

The other area I would like to focus on is infrastructure. This

committee certainly knows the value of water infrastructure and so

does EPA. We are requesting $730 million for the Clean Water

State Revolving Fund Program. I certainly recognize that is an

area where some, particularly in this room, feel there should be

more.

I would say to the Committee that the Administration’s approach

is that, as it was originally envisioned, when this Committee wrote

the 1987 amendments, the State Revolving Fund would over time

actually revolve and not have to rely on Federal seed money after

a certain period of time. We are making a $6.8 billion commitment that, if $730 million

is appropriated over the years, eventually the fund will revolve on

its own at $3.4 billion. We think it is a continued step forward. We

recognize that there is far more that needs to be brought to the

table in terms of State and local resources, full cost pricing, and

asset management.

One of our highest priorities, Mr. Chairman, is to focus not only

on the supply side of the equation, where the Federal dollars or the

local dollars are going to come from, but also on the demand side:

water use efficiency, water conservation, and asset management.

We are committed to that.

I would note that one of the Agency’s priorities is to continue to

work with our local partners on ways to better manage their facilities and to take advantage of conservation pricing; or, to explore

working with the Department of Energy and the Energy Star Program on ways, through voluntary measures, to reduce costs

through water use efficiency, water conservation.

I would also like to focus on the all-important point of watershed

based approaches. That is one of our four pillars to sustainable infrastructure. But it is probably the most important approach to the

successful implementation of the Clean Water Act.

Watershed restoration means bringing together in a collaboration, whether regional or local, all the key players, to focus on the

tools that are available under the Clean Water Act, and to pursue

innovations and cost-effective measures.

Through a focus on watersheds, we are very pleased with the

Targeted Watersheds Grants Program. We are requesting $15 million for that. We think that is a powerful engine for innovation, for

trading, for accelerating restoration of impaired waters and watersheds.

The other key point is regional collaborations. One of the highest

priorities of the Agency and the Administration, when it comes to

water, is the Great Lakes. This involves continuing the regional
9

collaboration of national significance, the Great Lakes Legacy Act.

We are seeking the full amount authorized for clean-up, $50 million under the Act, and that is extremely important to us.

The last point is wetlands. Wetlands is a key part of any responsible management of a watershed. The President made a fundamental shift from simply a no-net loss goal to an overall gain

goal last Earth Day, and we are committed to helping in that regard. We are requesting $20 million, a 33 percent increase in the Wetlands Grants Program, to help us accelerate progress, respect property rights, respect the regulated community; and through regulatory and non-regulatory measures, advance the ball on wetlands

and watershed protection.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your patience and look

forward to answering any questions.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, very much; the Great Lakes Legacy

Acts was one of the bills that we passed through this Subcommittee

and full committee.

I welcome back the veteran members and introduced a couple of

new ones that had come in on our side. Did we introduce Mr.

Schwartz? Okay, good, I wanted to make sure of that. Also, Mr.

Baird has come in and joined us, as well.

Next, we will hear from Administrator Dunne.

Mr. DUNNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee; I am Tom Dunne, EPA’s Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

I am pleased to appear before this Subcommittee to discuss the

President’s Fiscal Year 2006 budget request for the Superfund,

Brownfields, and other programs that fall within my office.

The President’s budget request provides the necessary funds for

EPA to carry out its mission efficiently and effectively, to protect

human health and safeguard the environment. The budget request

maintains funding for the Superfund Cleanup Program, and includes an increase for Homeland Security efforts in our Office of

Emergency Management. The budget request also includes a significant increase for the Brownfields Program.

The Superfund Program continues to face unprecedented problems. EPA is faced with a large number of costly, complex sites

that are taking up a large portion of our construction budget.

In the past fiscal year, nine sites used more than 52 percent of

the construction contract budget. I want to assure you that we are

managing this challenge through aggressive contract management.

We have been able to supplement EPA’s site construction funding

by de-obligating more than $500 million over the past four years.

As of January 2005, cleanup construction has been completed at

927 private and Federal Superfund sites, and 94 percent of Superfund sites have either cleanup construction underway or have completed cleanup construction.

The Superfund budget request will also fund EPA’s Removal and

Emergency Response Program. To date, EPA has completed more

than 8,200 removal actions at toxic waste sites to immediately reduce threats to human health and the environment.

The President’s budget also requests an increase in the

Brownfields Program for a total of $210,000,000. This represents
10

nearly a $47 million increase from Fiscal Year 2005 appropriated

levels.

The increase in the budget request will enable EPA to further

enhance State and Tribal response programs that restore and reclaim contaminated and blighted brownfield sites.

EPA estimates that the President’s budget request could fund up

to 1,000 brownfield site assessments, 60 cleanups, and leverage

roughly $1 billion in cleanup and redevelopment.

The budget request also provides OSWER’s Oil Spill Program

$2.3 million. The Oil Spill Program focuses on preventing oil spills,

reducing the risk of hazardous exposure to people in the environment, and responding to oil spills, where necessary.

EPA evaluates as many as 13,000 spills each year to determine

if assistance is required; and on average, EPA takes emergency actions to respond to oil spills at approximately 300 sites per year.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss

some of these important EPA programs that are entrusted to my

office. I look forward to working with you and your committee as

we work toward our mutual goal of protecting human health and

safeguarding the environment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Administrator Dunne. You

mentioned, of course, Superfund and the Brownfields, which we get

into on this Subcommittee.

I will tell some of the newer members that we passed through

this Subcommittee about three years ago in 2002 the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Redevelopment Act. That is

one of the things, of course, that you mentioned. But that is already doing a lot of good, I think, in a lot of places around the

country.

We have now been joined, in addition to other members I have

mentioned, by Congressman Osborne. We did introduce you earlier,

but we are certainly glad to have you on the Subcommittee.

Next, we will go to the third witness for today, Dr. Spinrad.

Dr. SPINRAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the

Subcommittee. I am Rick Spinrad, the Assistant Administrator of

NOAA for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management. On behalf of NOAA Administrator, Vice Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher,

thank you for inviting NOAA to testify today on our Fiscal Year

2006 budget request and priorities.

First, I will speak to NOAA’s responsibilities under both the

Superfund Act and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. NOAA has the

responsibility to protect and restore coastal resources when threatened or injured by releases of oil or hazardous substances.

Specifically, NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration implements CERCLA and OPA mandates by providing an interdisciplinary scientific response to releases of oil, chemicals, and other contaminants; protecting and restoring NOAA trust resources; and extending core expertise to address critical local and regional coastal

challenges as they arise.

In Fiscal Year 2006, the President is requesting $17.6 million for

response and restoration activities to meet our responsibilities

under CERCLA and OPA to protect and restore injured coastal and

marine resources.
11

Funding in 2006 will continue to support damage assessment

and restoration efforts for sites such as the Hudson River in New

York, Commencement Bay in Washington, and the LCP chemicals

hazardous waste site in Georgia.

NOAA will provide technical assistance, training, and support to

States and communities to strengthen local and regional capabilities to restore or redevelop contaminated sites and port areas.

The Fiscal Year 2006 request also provides funding for the Great

Lakes Region under NOAA’s fisheries habitat restoration line item.

This funding will expand NOAA’s capabilities in the Great Lakes

Region, providing a focused effort on habitat protection and restoration, through an ecosystem-based approach.

The second area I would like to focus on today is the Coastal

Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. Polluted runoff from growing

urban areas, septic systems, farms, forestry operations, and other

land uses remains a major threat to our coastal areas.

NOAA anticipates playing an important role in the implementation of the President’s U.S. Ocean Action Plan, which identifies several initiatives to reduce nonpoint source pollution in coastal watersheds.

For example, in Fiscal Year 2005, NOAA and EPA, in partnership with other Federal agencies, will initiate a series of community workshops to improve integration and coordination of the

Coastal Zone Management Act and the Clean Water Act and other

Federal programs.

NOAA works closely with EPA to ensure that coastal States have

the tools necessary to effectively manage nonpoint sources of pollution. Thirty-three of the thirty-four States and territories that participate in the Coastal Zone Management Program now have either

conditionally or fully approved coastal nonpoint programs.

The Administration recognizes the important role that State

coastal management programs can play in addressing coastal

nonpoint pollution problems. NOAA will continue to leverage our

resources by working closely with EPA and other Federal partners

to apply NOAA’s expertise in coastal management to nonpoint pollution issues and programs.

The next two areas I would like to focus on today are the NOAA

programs and activities related to harmful algal blooms (HABs)

and hypoxia.

Virtually every coastal State has reported reoccurring major

blooms, and a recent national assessment revealed that half of our

Nation’s estuaries experience hypoxic conditions at some point each

year.

NOAA, working closely with our partners, has made considerable

progress in the ability to detect, monitor, assess, and predict HABs

and hypoxia in coastal ecosystems. For example, NOAA implemented the first operational HAB forecasting system along the

West Coast of Florida in 2004.

The President’s Fiscal Year 2006 budget requests $8.9 million in

funding for HAB and HABHRCA-related research. Through the

Inter-Agency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia,

NOAA will provide guidance for existing research programs, for addressing the research needs in the Great Lakes, and the development of new programs in the areas of prediction, response, and re-
12

search, as well as development, demonstration, and technology

transfer.

The last area I will speak to today is NOAA’s request for aquatic

nuisance species activities. The Fiscal Year 2006 President’s budget

requests a total of $7.9 million to continue NOAA’s work to prevent

the spread of invasive species. The 2006 funding request assumes

continued support for the invasive species research and outreach

projects selected through a national competition in fiscal year 2005.

A vital part of the 2006 request is $2.5 million for the Aquatic

Invasive Species Program, which focuses on early detection, monitoring, and control of aquatic invasive species, including an interagency crosscut initiative led by NOAA, the United States Geological Survey, and the Smithsonian’s Environmental Research Center.

NOAA is leading the development of an early warning system for

coastal and marine invasive species through its National Centers

for Coastal Ocean Science. Once this early warning system is tested in Hawaii, it will be expanded to include other regions of the

United States.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for inviting NOAA to participate

in today’s hearing. At this time, I would be glad to answer any

questions; thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Spinrad, and we

thank all of the witnesses. I had divided my opening statement up

into two different parts. So sometimes I go first on the questions

and sometimes I go last. Today, I am going to go last, since I have

spoken twice.

I will say, though, for some of the members who were not here

for that part of my statement, that one of the first big things we

are going to concentrate on is our Water Resources Development

Act. The committee has set a March 2nd deadline of any requests.

So if there is any type of a water project or work that is needed

to be done in your district, you might try to let us know before

March 2nd.

I will go first though and yield my time for questions at this time

to Mr. Gilchrest.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Grumbles, I have a comment and two quick questions. My

comment is, I think my staff has already contacted you to talk

about the Chesapeake Bay Program. It has been in effect almost

20 years now. The Bay is steady, but not improving.

So what I would like to talk to EPA about is how to reform the

program so that the dollars that are spent can be more oriented towards specific restoration activities, as opposed to ongoing bureaucracy, research projects, and things like that.

Out of the $20 million a year that we have seen, only a fraction

of that actually gets put into grants for restoration projects; whether it is planting trees, purchasing of easements, and things like

that.

There is $800 million annually from all of the different States.

But it so fragmented, so diffuse, that that money does not have any

specific goal. Of course, the watershed from New York to Virginia

is 95 percent private property. So it enhances the difficulty of the

restoration.
13

But I would like to have an ongoing discussion with EPA about

how to reform that to get all those dollars. Because you talked

about investment in infrastructure. If we could make human infrastructure compatible with nature’s infrastructure, nature would do

a lot more than a sewage treatment plant. It is a matter of how

much filtering you get out of a 100 acres of trees versus one sewage

treatment plant.

Anyway, those are the kinds of things that I would like to talk

about; a pretty major reform of the Chesapeake Bay Program. The question is, in part of your program, you talk about $24 million for a probabilistic monitoring of water quality. What I have

written seems to be somewhat different from TMDLs. Could you

comment on what the difference is?

Mr. GRUMBLES. Sure, I would, and I also would just say that I

look forward to working with you and your colleagues on further

efforts on Chesapeake Bay Restoration, and I recognize your leadership in that effort, legislative with bills and also oversight.

One of the benefits of the $24 million monitoring investment will

be better TMDLs. It will also benefit State officials, and local water

resource managers, who will have a better sense of what waters

are impaired, and which ones are not meeting their designated

uses.

But probabilistic sampling is a concept of a scientifically sound

approach to get the best, most credible and statically valid assessment, without having a monitoring station at every single spot.

So it is trying to come up with the best, most accurate picture

and perspective of the water quality, recognizing that some of those

funds cannot just go towards monitoring. They need to go towards

projects, implementation of efforts.

So that is one of the reasons why, for us, it is a priority, and the

President’s budget reflects that it is a priority. Improved monitoring, more tools for States and localities, can lead to better decisions

and more effective projects down the road.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, that sounds good.

Dr. Spinrad, as far as I can understand, there is no demonstration project for ballast water in NOAA’s budget. The IMO, I think,

has come up with standards for ballast water that are to be implemented in the International Maritime Industry in 2009. I do not

know of standards that the U.S. has reached yet, either with

NOAA or the Coast Guard. Could you comment on that?

Dr. SPINRAD. Yes, sir, and first, I would like to thank you, Congressman, for the support that you have provided in the development of many of the related programs associated with harmful

algal blooms which, of course, have an association with some ballast water activities.

We have chosen, in NOAA, to focus our investments on those

invasive species issues that are specific to monitoring and detection

and forecast of the invasive species, as opposed to the ballast water

technology activities.

Mr. GILCHREST. So are you leaving that up to the Coast Guard?

Dr. SPINRAD. We work closely with the Coast Guard. Obviously,

we coordinate with them on their STEP Program. But by and large,

other than the example of the additional resources provided in Fiscal Year 2005, which we have directed towards particular ballast
14

water activities, our emphasis has been on the monitoring and detection of those invasives.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right, thank you very much, Mr. Gilchrest. Ms.

Johnson?

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dunne, I agree with the President on the importance of the

Brownfields Program in redeveloping under-utilized areas through

the country. In my own city, Dallas, Texas, the city worked with

EPA to re-develop 72 acres of abandoned rail yards, an old power

plant, and an old meat processing plant, to make room for the

American Airlines Center.

Since 2001, this area has been a major success story in Dallas,

with significant re-development of commercial and residential living spaces growing up around the center.

This is the kind of success story that needs to be replicated

throughout the country. Unfortunately, however, the President’s

budget for the Brownfields Program shortchanges communities on

the availability of brownfields sites assessment and cleanup funding.

The budget identifies $210.1 million for brownfields. However,

only $120 million is for actual assessment and cleanup. While the

authorized amount is $200 million, the remaining $90 million in

the budget appear to be destined to support bureaucracies of EPA

and the States, and not actual assessment and cleanup.

If we were to re-allocate one half of the remaining $90 to assessment, would that not add another third of the 1,000 sites you expect to be assessed and another third to the 60 sites you expect to

clean up in the coming year?

Mr. DUNNE. Congresswoman, $60 million of the request is going

for State and Tribal programs. Almost all States are running

Brownfields Programs, of which they also have funding mechanisms. It is also helping local communities in developing their own

Brownfields Programs.

So I think the feeling is that the money that is being spent, or

the $60 million that is being requested for States and Tribes, is

well worth the investment. Because, in effect, you are funding the

organizations that can help accelerate Superfund or brownfields

cleanup and alternative sites at the local level.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you; Mr. Grumbles, the budget and your

testimony refer to the Administration’s desire to achieve a revolving level of $3.4 billion annually for the Clean Water Act State Revolving Loan Fund Program. What is the basis for this $3.4 billion

number? What analysis went into developing that number, and

what is the impact on that level of funding in addressing the identified funding gap?

Mr. GRUMBLES. Well, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund is

a critically important tool. It is just one of the tools in the toolbox

to address what we have documented as a very large national gap

in infrastructure needs versus spending.

So the answer to your question is, the first basis that we used

was the EPA Gap Analysis that we completed about two years ago.

That laid out the most detailed information to date on the gap be-
15

tween projected needs over the next 20 years and also the likely

expenditures.

What we did, Congresswoman, was we looked at the levels, the $21 billion gap that is documented in that report. We then made

modeling estimates and projections. If you make assumptions about

leveraging and the annual use of the State Revolving Loan Funds,

if we continue to contribute Federal seed money, which we want to

do, at what point nationally could those State Revolving Loan

Funds actually revolve, as was intended in the 1987 amendment.

What that led us to conclude was that if we can net, up front, $6.8 billion over the years 2004 through 2011, then eventually the

fund nationally would revolve at that level.

Ms. JOHNSON. Will it make the gap disappear?

Mr. GRUMBLES. No, it will not. Our projection is that if utilities

pursue full cost pricing, if the four pillars of the Agency’s approach

are used, then we think that the gap could be closed. You know,

it is an estimate. But we would hope that that amount would lead

to a closing of the gap. But there is nothing certain or definite

about that.

Ms. JOHNSON. My time has expired, but I have one quick last

question. What will the gap be? Do you know?

Mr. GRUMBLES. Well, the gap depends on a lot of things. So what

will it be after 2011? It requires a time frame.

If that is the question, we are hopeful that if the amount that

we have requested is provided every year and the four pillars of

sustainable infrastructure are used, then that $21 billion gap, if

not eliminated, would be significantly reduced.

But I guess part of the point is that local infrastructure, as important as the Federal role is in that endeavor, requires a lot of additional tools and actions by local government and rate payers and

other sources of State funding. So it is hard to predict.

But our vision of it is that if Congress does continue to provide

the seed money over that period of time, and if the four pillars of

sustainable infrastructure are pursued, then the gap will be significantly narrowed; thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right, thank you very much.

Professor Ehlers?

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, Mr. Spinrad, I have just a comment about your role

on invasives. I appreciate the report on harmful algal blooms. As

you know, I sponsored the legislation and I am pleased with your

work on that. I hope we can make some real progress on that.

I was disappointed in your comment about your role in invasives.

I recognize you are restricted because the Coast Guard is involved,

as well. Frankly, the Coast Guard has been involved for 15 years

and really has not done much.

So I would hope that we can find a more active role for NOAA

in dealing with aquatic invasives. Mr. Gilchrest and I are sponsors

of two companion bills that we will be taking up again this year,

and hope to get them passed this session. You have the expertise

and the knowledge at NOAA to really deal with it accurately, and

I hope we can give you a more meaningful role in that.

Mr. Grumbles, I am very pleased with what Administrator Levitt

has done on the Great Lakes issues. He has really taken that to
16

heart and worked very hard on it. He started this whole process

to develop the Comprehensive Action Plan. We hope that will continue under the new Administrator, whoever that might be, and we

hope that you will continue your involvement in that, as well.

It is extremely important that we protect the Great Lakes. Along

that line, as you know, I sponsored the Legacy Act. I appreciate the

willingness at the EPA to provide funding, and particularly the

budget request for this year at the authorized level of $50 million,

and the support of both the EPA and the White House.

In fact, a White House official told me that it was a no-brainer

for them to fully fund it, because the needs are clearly identified.

The options are clearly identified. The process is clearly identified.

It is one of the few environmental areas that can make that claim.

So I hope that trend of full funding will continue, and we can deal

with the cleanup of these contaminated areas of concern.

One question I have for you, how is the EPA determining how

to spend the money? It was easy to spend the first part of it, because the projects were right there, ready to go.

But how are you deciding whether to put money in orphan sites

or put it in places where you can accelerate projects already under

way? I am also wondering about that first $10 million, which is

now out there being spent. How is that working? Can you give us

a progress report on that?

Mr. GRUMBLES. Sure, and I need to note that it was virtually a

year ago, or almost the precise date, that you made the request of

us to go back and talk about the 2006 budget request and seek full

funding for the Great Lakes Legacy Act.

I would say that we are still working on it. It is a very high priority --that additional funding. It is more than doubling what Congress appropriated for Fiscal Year 2005. So we hope that additional

funding will come.

In terms of the funding from 2005 coupled with the previous

year, we certainly have at least one project that is nearly completion, the Black Lagoon Project in Michigan. We have about 14

other projects.

The Great Lakes Legacy Act is very helpful and clear in terms

of laying out statutory criteria about priorities. So we are following

that closely. You are right, there are some questions. There will undoubtedly be some competition. We will look beyond just the nonFederal cost as to who can provide that 35 percent; but also with

the priority needs, we will go through a risk analysis.

You mentioned the question of Superfund. I would say that we

want to honor the principle of ‘‘Polluter Pays.’’ We also recognize

the intent of the Great Lakes Legacy Act, that in some of these

cases, while there may be liability associated with PRPs, there are

also broader opportunities to have a collaboration among the various agencies and governmental and non-governmental funds going

into specific projects.

We are very enthused about the Great Lakes Legacy Act. There

are 31 areas of concern. There are a lot of priorities and needs. We

are hopeful that the executive order in the Great Lakes collaboration will also provide some useful information about the broader

restoration of the Great Lakes. That may also be able to inform us
17

in our decisions about the projects under the Great Lakes Legacy

Act.

Mr. EHLERS. Well, I very much appreciate the Bush Administration’s record on the Great Lakes. I hope we get an EPA Administrator that will continue that tradition.

I have a very quick question for Mr. Dunne. On the Superfund

cleanup, the tax expired some time ago. Do you have enough money

to continue your work on that, or should the Congress be looking

at re-instituting that fee that started the program?

Mr. DUNNE. Congressman, if you go back and look at the actual

facts of the fund, on the relationship that was in there on the tax,

there is no relationship with what the Congress appropriated us in

any given year, none. As a matter of fact, if you go back to 1996,

when they had $3.9 billion in the fund, the Agency received the

second lowest funding of all time.

So people that are trying to make the equation between the

amount of money in the fund or the tax, I think, are not being accurate about it.

We can continue to fund those projects that have the basic need.

Every project that we look at that has got any health concerns, we

move immediately to reduce those. So there is not any project on

the national priority list that has not been addressed in terms of

health risk.

So in terms of the communities whom we have not been able to

reach with the funds, you can rest assured that we are working as

diligently and as efficiently as possible to get to those sites. But at

no time would we tolerate not having a plan in order to be able

to take care of the immediate health risk, and that is being taken

care of now.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. Baird?

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman’s testimony.

Dr. Spinrad, I must say I am not one of those who believes that

we should pat ourselves on the back and measure our success by

throwing money at problems. Nevertheless, a dearth of funds can

create problems.

I am very interested in the issue of invasive species and the costs

they present. What is the total Administration proposal for funding

on invasive species?

Dr. SPINRAD. As I indicated in my testimony, the NOAA contribution is identified as $7.9 million associated with the invasives,

mostly oriented towards detection, monitoring, and assessment. We

are going to have to get back to the Subcommittee for the total Administration piece of the invasives’ budget.

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you; to put that amount into context, do you

have an estimate of how much zebra mussels alone cost the economy in the Great Lakes region and the Mississippi region?

Dr. SPINRAD. I would be remiss to quote a number off the top of

my head. But I can indicate to you that there are abundant studies

along those lines. I believe EPA, in fact, may have some specific

numbers.
18

Mr. BAIRD. My recollection is, it is billions, with a ‘‘B’’ a year,

and we are spending $7 million. My particular concern is, if you

get zebra mussels on the west side of the Rocky Mountains and

into the Cascade River system and Northern California systems,

you are going to have devastating impacts. I would encourage the

Administration to look more seriously at the savings that preventive efforts may have.

The 100th Meridian Initiative could help us prevent this and

some other early interventions. We know from experience that

stopping these species before they really get a toehold can save billions of dollars.

So I would just encourage you to convey that to the Administration. It is not a glamorous issue. There are no political contributions that go with it. But it happens to be central to our environment and our economy.

Mr. Grumbles, I have two questions about the State Revolving

Loan Fund. Maybe you wanted to add, did you have a cost estimate

on invasives?

Mr. GRUMBLES. I have a cost estimate, at least with respect to

zebra mussels. Treatment and control by industrial and municipal

water users is over $300 million a year, nationwide.

I can also tell you that at the Office of Water, one of our focal

points or priorities is to help develop an overall estimate of the

costs and the benefits, in terms of control of zebra mussels and

invasive species, more broadly, because of the impacts to the ecology and the economy.

Mr. BAIRD. That is good to hear, because sparteine grass in the

Willopa Bay is threatening to wipe out the oyster industry. It is a

huge environmental area for shore birds and salmon, and we really

need to get a hold of these things early.

I have two questions about the State Revolving Loan Fund. First,

I note in the budget significant cuts in the expenditures on that.

Now I understand that rationale that we are trying to create a

Revolving Loan Fund. But my understanding, from some of the

communities that I represent is, they would like to get some of

those funds and they are unable to. My impression is that that is

already over-subscribed.

So on the one hand, we want to create a stable Revolving Loan

Fund. But on the other hand, more people need those funds than

we currently have. It seems to me that further cuts, which I see

in this budget, will deprive those communities of those needed

funds and of our goal of cleaning the water and providing healthier

drinking water for our communities. Can you enlighten me on that

a little bit?

Mr. GRUMBLES. Well, every State Revolving Loan Fund looks to

the State’s intended use plan, the priority projects that are ready

to go. I would say that the lists of projects can be quite long in

States. There is no question, and the Agency recognizes that the

needs are many.

What we are focusing on and trying to encourage is acceleration

towards sustainability through increased leveraging, and also recognizing the original intent, which was that after a period of time,

and it was about eight years as it was originally written in the
19

1987 amendments to the act, the Federal Capitalization Grants,

the seed money, would stop.

Mr. BAIRD. I have got just a few seconds. I appreciate that. Let

me just ask one final question related to this. It sounds to me then

like there are more people seeking the monies than can have them.

It seems to me that the cut, and maybe I can put this in a different

way, is actually going to shift the costs onto the communities.

Earlier, you mentioned that you wanted to talk about full cost

pricing. Does that mean that it is the Administration’s intent, at

the same time that it is cutting funding for the State Revolving

Loan Fund, to encourage local communities to raise the sewer and

water rates on their subscribers? If so, what economic impact

might that have on our local communities, particularly our small

communities that are challenged by this cost?

Mr. GRUMBLES. Well, out intent is to continue to be a full partner, a Federal partner, in the Clean Water SRF and to work with

communities when they get loans under the SRF and with the

States who administer them.

What our intent is, Congressman, we want to make sure people

understand the value of water. It is a local decision. It is for the

local elected officials to make that decision.

Mr. BAIRD. Well, I know I am out of time. But I am not so sure

all the communities see it as a local decision. I am pleased that we

have the Clean Water Act and that we require certain standards

of cleanliness. But many of these local communities feel it is a Federal mandate to meet those standards without any accompanying

funding.

So, yes, maybe it is a local decision, but the costs of not complying, you do not get to operate your water sewer system. So it is not

exactly a local system.

Mr. GRUMBLES. Well, certainly, as we make regulatory decisions

from the national level, we need to keep in mind and to account

that it is not only sustainable infrastructure, but affordable infrastructure that we want to pursue.

So there is a balance between full cost pricing and recognizing

the inequities in any particular local situation, using the wide

array of not just supply side economics, but demand to help encourage water conservation and funding through various Federal and

non-Federal sources.

Mr. BAIRD. I thank the gentleman. I just would close by saying,

if I were a local community faced with installing a new water or

sewer system, I would not be heartened by this budget or that response. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right, thank you, Mr. Baird.

Mrs. Kelly?

Ms. KELLY. Thank you; Mr. Grumbles, I would like to go back

to talk about the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. As you know,

the Chairman of this Committee held hearings on this. I had a bill

that would provide $25 billion. He had a bill which we passed on

the Floor of the House and it went over to the Senate last year for

$20 billion.

I would like to know how the Administration arrives at the idea

that a Clean Water State Revolving Fund should revolve over time

at a level of $3.4 billion a year?
20

You have been in my district. You know that we have aged infrastructure. Dr. Spinrad is here talking about the Hudson River and

the need for what we do there. We have terrible problems with the

aged infrastructure and combined sewer overflows and things like

that.

If this money is cramped down to the point where there just simply are not sufficient monies available, every State in this Union

is going to be fighting for it. If you have been into a restroom here

on the Capitol recently, there is a big red sign saying, ‘‘Do not

drink the water’’ in the restroom. Washington has its water issues.

I would like to know how the Administration arrived at this

seemingly paltry amount of $3.4 billion. I do not mean to put you

on the spot. You can give me the figures later, if you do not have

them with you.

Are you including the fact, and I applaud the idea that you have

got the flexibility built in so that the States can transfer the funds,

so they can maximize the flexibility between the Drinking Water

State Revolving Fund and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund?

Can you give me some help here, because I do not quite understand

what happened.

Mr. GRUMBLES. Sure, I would mention a couple of things, as Congresswoman Johnson asked the question, too, about where did we

start and on what basis.

We did this comprehensive report, the Gap Analysis, that laid

out some pretty stark numbers, some very large costs, the gap between projected needs and projected spending for clean water infrastructure over a 20 year period. We looked at the $21 billion gap, based on various assumptions.

Then from there, what we looked at, even though the act, the authorization for the SRF has expired. So what strategy would we

have for continued long-term investment at the Federal level, that

would also eventually reach the original intend of the SRFs, which

was that these were meant to be State Revolving Funds that could

be self-sustaining, based on the pay back of loans and leveraging

and other proceeds coming in, without having Federal subsidy up

front?

When we did the numbers on that, we made various assumptions, which I would be happy to share with you in more detail.

Ms. KELLY. If you would, sir, I would appreciate it.

Mr. GRUMBLES. We recognize that an investment of $6.8 billion

over the next several years, 2004 through 2011, would over time

allow for the funds to revolve on their own. We just estimated that

it will be around $3.4 billion.

I am glad you mentioned the transfer of funds, the flexibility.

That is something that was in the legislation, the Safe Drinking

Water Act Amendments. We continue to request that that authority for flexibility among the drinking water and clean water funds

be continued as a legislative item.

Ms. KELLY. I thank you very much. I would hope that you would

supply, if you do not mind, some facts and figures on that.

Certainly, as you said, our water needs to be clean, safe, and secure, but clean is the first of those. We have been struggling very

hard to meet Federal mandates in my State. I represent both the

Hudson and the Delaware Rivers. The area of the Delaware where
21

I represent is not particularly polluted, but with the Hudson, we

are downstream from Ft. Howard.

We have Federal mandates that we are trying to meet. We need

the money to get to that position, and I think the other side was

mentioning the same thing. I hope you will work with us to get us

to a point where we, too, can have clean water and not worry about

combined sewer overflows when we get another hurricane sweeping

up the coast.

Thank you very much; I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, very much, Ms. Kelly. Certainly, we

know of your long concern and great interest in this area. We will

continue to work on this in the months ahead.

Mr. Taylor or Mr. Bishop, whoever wants to go first; Mr. Bishop?

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My questions are for Mr. Grumbles. I want to just focus in on

the Long Island Sound study. Just to provide some context for the

last several years, the Long Island Sound Study has received Federal support in the neighborhood of $7 million a year. In the current fiscal year, its total support is $6.7 million.

The budget requests a total of $477,000, which I think most people would agree is a pretty sizable cut. The cut is perplexing. It is

particularly perplexing, Mr. Grumbles, in light of your comments

in your testimony in which you talked about the priority that the

EPA is giving to regional collaborations; its priority given to watershed-based approaches; priority to monitoring.

If the Long Island Sound Study is not about those three things,

I am not sure what it is about. It certainly is a regional collaboration. It certainly is a watershed-based approach, and it certainly

has monitoring as one of its essential components.

Given all of that and given the priority that you, yourself, assert

that the EPA has given to those approaches, could you please help

me understand why the EPA thinks a significant cut is the right

thing to do?

Mr. GRUMBLES. Congressman, first of all, I would say, there is

not a rating or a program assessment that would indicate that it

is not a worthwhile investment. The Long Island Sound program

office and the efforts towards the restoration and protection of the

Long Island Sound are important and worthy of support.

The Agency, as long as I can remember, has requested about that

level of amount, and then there has been a Congressional discussion. Congress has, I think, typically provided more.

I would say that we are focused on a couple of things. We have

a lot of planning, assistance, and regulatory responsibilities that

we are committed to on Long Island Sound, whether it is the designation of the disposal sites, and we are working on that process,

through the regional collaborations.

I feel as though one of the lessons that we have learned, which

is a good lesson for the whole Nation, is that in the Long Island

Sound area, as Congresswoman Kelly points out the needs for infrastructure we like to point to the importance and the savings

that have occurred through water quality trading. We estimate

$200 million in cost-savings to utilities in the Long Island Sound

area by pursuing a water quality trading approach to permitting

and the reduction of nutrients into the Long Island Sound.
22

I just would say that we look forward to the discussion with Congress on the appropriate levels, in terms of these important regional programs. The level that we are requesting in this budget

is very similar to previous ones. I look forward to working with you

and others on Long Island Sound restoration.

Mr. BISHOP. Perhaps it is not your problem, but I would hope

that you would agree that the bar has been raised somewhat this

year. I think ability of Congress to be able to add funding for programs that it considers to be important is going to be less easily

accomplished, given the current budget constraints this year than

we have not had in other years.

I guess my concern is that we have a very important regional resource that is important, in and of itself, just in terms of the environmental quality. But it is also an important resource with respect to the underpinning of the economic well being of our region,

which is a tourism-based and second home industry-based economy.

If we lose both the quality of the water that surrounds us and

if we lose shoreline protection and if we lose the pristine nature of

wetlands and so on, we have a severe economic problem. I would

hope it would be a problem that the Agency would recognize is one

that they have an obligation to.

What the Agency seems to be saying, yes, it is a worthwhile program, but it is up to Connecticut and New York to carry it forward.

Is that not a reasonable conclusion for me to take?

Mr. GRUMBLES. I agreed with everything you said, up to the last

point. Because we do feel that there is an important responsibility

for the Agency, and we look forward to meeting it in the Long Island Sound program office in the overall effort in protecting and restoring Long Island Sound. There are some very tough budgetary

choices that have to be made. On this one, we look forward to discussing it.

Mr. BISHOP. I guess I would say, at the risk of being argumentative, I recognize that you have to make tough choices. I did budgeting in my previous job. I know all about making choices from

equally unattractive alternatives, and I perfected that as an art

form.

But I guess that if you had to make a cut from $6.7 million to

$477,000, or maybe $6.7 million to $6.2 million or $6.5 million, I

mean, this is a cut, and I am doing the math in my head, of about

80 or 85 percent. That is a pretty severe cut that imposes an enormous burden on the States and the localities that have an obligation to protect Long Island Sound, and it is one that they are going

to be hard pressed to pick up.

Mr. GRUMBLES. We look forward to working with you and with

Congress on the program. I know the $477,000 is what the Agency,

under previous Administrations as well, has been requesting. We

look forward to focusing on doing more with the limited resources

that we have.

That is why we point to the collaborations and the National Estuary Program and the Long Island Sound Program to bring more

partners to the table to advance the ball, while we also have these

discussions about how much should be in the budget request.
23

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Bishop.

Mr. Baker?

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have several questions

for NOAA. I have provided the Clerk with a copy of most of those.

I will just submit them for the record for them to be later forwarded.

I would just like to use my time to engage Dr. Spinrad in reaching an understanding about one local issue relative to the liquified

natural gas project request in the Gulf of Mexico.

As I understand the process to date, the Coast Guard is the lead

permitting agency for enterprises who wish to engage in the construction of LNG platforms. But it has contracted out, in essence,

to NOAA the requirement to engage in the environmental impact

assessment.

To date, the Agency has done its due diligence, had public hearings and, I believe, has actually issued a FONSI, a Finding of No

Significant Impact. But I do not know where in the overall permitting process this matter now resides.

I am concerned that it has taken awhile to reach its final conclusion, and wanted to make an inquiry as to any reasons for delay

or a prognosis as to the timely resolution of the permittee’s request.

Dr. SPINRAD. Congressman, we can certainly provide the specifics

with respect to where the processing of that permit lies right now.

I will point out simply that NOAA’s responsibilities associated

with the technical expertise provided in those assessments, often

times, we find requires extensive get-back with our research community and iteration on what the potential impacts or potential

consequences are. Environmental considerations tend to be slightly

more complicated than some of the more straightforward physical

issues that we have got to deal with.

Mr. BAKER. Oh, I fully understand, and did not expect you to

have personal knowledge of this level of detail. My only concern

was, I believe a FONSI was issued, and that the Agency has done

all of its work.

But something in the interim between the determination of no effect and the Coast Guard’s ability to issue permits, I do not know

if it is an inter-agency communication difficulty or whether there

is something internally within NOAA that has caused them to review the matter again. I am just trying to find out, where are we.

That really is it.

Dr. SPINRAD. Congressman, I understand your issue, and we will

certainly work to get the solution.

Mr. BAKER. Thank you very much, I appreciate your courtesy.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Baker.

Mr. Taylor?

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you and I apologize for running late. My

other committee is the Armed Services Committee. In that capacity, I have been fortunate enough to go visit the troops over in Iraq

a few times.

I have got to admit noticing an irony here, where every time I

go to Iraq we, as a Nation, brag on the money we are spending on

waste water treatment over there. We brag on the money we are
24

spending on wetlands restoration over there. We denounce Saddam

for his lack of funding for infrastructure.

I come over here and get an EPA budget from the same Administration that is cutting money for waste water treatment in our

country; that is spending way too little on wetlands restoration in

our country; and apparently, a lack of money for infrastructure is

becoming the accepted norm. Again, I note that with irony. I do not

say it happily. I certainly wish it was different.

One of the things that I would like you gentlemen to comment

on is, I have noticed a pleasant change in the past five or six years

with the Corps of Engineers, where at least down my way, and I

am sure they have been doing it in other parts of the country, they

have shown a noticeable change in their attitude towards wetlands

creation, particularly with things like the dredge material that

they generate.

One of the frustrations that we have noticed is that if the creation of a wetlands with dredge spoil costs more than open ocean

dumping or taking the material inland, then they have to come up

with a local sponsor to make that happen.

Since every single community that I know of, and I would imagine it is universal, is already strapped for funds for sewage treatment plants, for water distribution, for waste water collection, for

police and fire, I have noticed that it is extremely difficult to get

a community to say, building that marsh is more important than

upgrading the sewage treatment plant; it is more important than

sewage collection; it is more important than police protection.

So having said all that, having read your statement where you

are saying wetlands restoration is a priority, my question is, would

you be willing to work with this Committee and other committees

of jurisdiction to see to it that the EPA could team up with the

Corps more often and that the EPA could become the cost share

partner, where and when an opportunity presents itself to do some

wetlands creation with dredge material, so that we do not have to

ask the communities of the Chesapeake, the communities of the

Gulf Coast or wherever?

Again, I am getting tired of hearing, we have got a great opportunity; boy we would love to do it, but we do not have any money.

If it is a goal of this Administration, and I hope it is to do so, then

why do we not change the rules and try to do that? Again, I am

asking your thoughts on that.

Mr. GRUMBLES. I would be happy to respond. I certainly remember your focus on the beneficial use of dredge material over the

years.

Mr. TAYLOR. And we have had some success stories.

Mr. GRUMBLES. Yes.

Mr. TAYLOR. But unfortunately not as many as I would like.

Mr. GRUMBLES. On November 19th, John Paul Woodley and I

signed a Memorandum of Understanding, a Partnership Agreement, between our two agencies to advance watershed-based approaches, watershed management. It listed about seven or eight

key areas. One of them was the beneficial use of dredge material.

So your guidance and your suggestion is a very helpful one, to

work with you and your colleagues on looking at that, not just as

a challenge, but as an opportunity.
25

Mr. TAYLOR. Can I get to the point? What if I went to the Chairman and said, Mr. Chairman, why do we not pull out this language

that says it has got to be a non-Federal sponsor and change that

to be a non-Corps sponsor?

If the EPA can reach their goal of creating X-number of acres of

marsh for 10 or 20 cents on the dollar, then of course, the other

80 cents is still coming out of the Corps’ budget, but the Corps was

going to spend that 80 cents anyway. The Corps was going to dispose of that material one place or the other anyway.

So if you can create X-number of acres of marsh for 20 cents on

the dollar, and that would have compared to the full dollar it would

have cost you to create that marsh yourselves, would you be agreeable to that? Would you be agreeable to that change in either the

law or the code?

Mr. GRUMBLES. Well, I can tell you that in terms of a statutory

change, I am not authorized to say whether we would be supportive

or not. But I am authorized to say that we would be very interested

in talking with you about that.

I can tell you that under several EPA programs, including the

Estuary Restoration Act that this Committee passed, the agencies

do work together towards habitat restoration, where they share

funds and resources amongst themselves. It is not just a Federal

versus non-Federal prism to look through things.

We also have various wetlands programs, and USDA and Interior really bring some resources to the table on that front.

So the bottom line, Congressman, is that I would look forward

to talking with you more and learning more about your suggestion

about a proposed legislative change. But at this point, I would just

simply say, we would look forward to the opportunity to talk to you

about it and learn more about your specific change.

Mr. TAYLOR. Okay, thank you, that is fair.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Taylor.

I will say that just before you mentioned your feelings about this

spending on the infrastructure in Iraq, I had mentioned to staff, to

Mrs. Bodine, that I participated in a hearing last week in which

the head of the GAO discussed over $9 billion that the Defense Department has lost or cannot account for over there. He says he has

zero doubt that that money was spent.

Perhaps the Armed Services Committee should look into that. To

think of losing $9 billion, just disappearing, and to think how much

good that could have done right here with our infrastructure in this

country, it is just mind boggling.

I know that Charlie Cook, respected political analyst, said one

time that nobody can comprehend a figure over $1 billion. So I

know it is hard to comprehend $9 billion, but that is still a lot of

money.

At any rate, I am pleased though that Mr. Grumbles mentioned

our estuary legislation. We have mentioned our brownfields legislation and our Great Lakes Legacy Act. All three were passed out of

this Subcommittee. So I am glad that some of these things are coming up and are doing some good.

Mr. Boustany?
26

Mr. BOUSTANY. I have a question for Dr. Spinrad. The subcommittee recently learned that NOAA has created a data base to

help first responders get information about chemical releases. I

thought this fell under Mr. Dunne’s jurisdiction and responsibilities. So did NOAA coordinate these efforts with the EPA and with

FEMA, or is this duplication?

Dr. SPINRAD. The database, in fact, is part of a large package of

programs that we developed under the name of CAMEO, which has

been developed in close coordination with FEMA, with EPA, with

the Coast Guard, as well as with the private sector.

I would point out that it is, in fact, the system of choice among

most of the emergency responders around the country, simply because of its ease of use as a database allows emergency responders

to quickly and easily access any number of thousands of chemicals

that go under a variety of commercial names or common names, as

well as easily at their fingertips to be able to access the remediative measures associated with those; and then, in addition, easily

couple that information, concentrations, types of materials into

forecast products, models. So it has been done in a very, very close

collaboration with the full suite of players that I have identified.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Very good, and for Mr. Grumbles, could you

elaborate on the security needs that remain unmet with regard to

our water and waste water facilities? I know that is a general and

broad question.

Mr. GRUMBLES. Well, I appreciate the question though, because

water security is an increasing challenge that local government and

States face.

EPA is requesting $44 million in the President’s budget. This is

a new program called Water Sentinel to help meet the drinking

water security needs of the country by establishing a new program

that would include a handful of cities where there would be monitoring in the distribution systems for warfare agents, or biological,

chemical, radiological agents.

It is a scientific investment that also helps lead to greater security. On the waste water front, I hear from utilities, whether it is

hardening their facilities or developing vulnerability assessments,

that is a need. So we want to work with them and provide training

and tools, and also make sure of available resources for that.

That is a growing concern which we need to keep in mind, any

time there is a proposal for a new regulatory mandate, because the

needs and the challenges are growing for utilities.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Certainly, I would think that with the concerns

about infrastructure needs that are currently unmet, and this is

just an added burden, which is going to be ongoing for the future.

Mr. GRUMBLES. We hope that it becomes an institutionalized

sense, a way of thinking, recognizing it is an added burden, but

also it is beneficial. One of the lessons we have learned is, it is beneficial to think not just about meeting the water quality requirements, but also to think about water security and to institutionalize that in your daily practice.

Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank you for your answers. Mr. Chairman,

that is all I have.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.

Ms. Schwartz?
27

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question.

I wanted to ask this question, and I assume Mr. Grumbles would

answer this question. It has to do with the oil spill in the Delaware

River that occurred just several months ago. The Coast Guard Subcommittee had a field hearing in Philadelphia that I was able to

participate in.

There were many issues obviously about different jurisdictions,

different people involved in cleaning up the oil spill. The Coast

Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers have all been very much

involved.

But one of the issues that came up from the State environmental

agencies, both New Jersey and Pennsylvania, was the fact that one,

we have to make sure that we complete the cleanup and particularly the environmental affects on wildlife and on the river itself,

after the initial cleanup is done.

In particular, there might be some concern as the weather

changes, that additional cleanup would be necessary. There was

some concern on both sides of the river that we do the cleanup, but

we really do not do restoration.

I really wanted to know from you, who at the EPA will be monitoring, if anyone, to make sure that the long-term effects on the

environment, on the wildlife, on the river itself are, in fact, monitored as oversight from the EPA, and that the resources are available, of course, and not left to the local communities?

The second part of my question would be, what else do we need

to do to protect that waterfront in the future from what we now

understand is actually not an unlikely risk of a large tanker running into some debris in the river?

It could happen again, and there was some suggestion from both

the New Jersey and Pennsylvania Environmental Protection Agencies that there were things that we could do, potentially, to do

more to both remediate what has already happened, and then to

prevent it in the future.

So if you could speak, I guess, to briefly where we are on that.

It was a pretty significant oil spill, obviously, and we do not want

it to have long-term environmental consequences to the river or either State.

Mr. GRUMBLES. Tom Dunne, really, within his Office of Solid

Waste and Emergency Response, focuses on oil spill response.

Mr. DUNNE. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. As

you properly point out, the Coast Guard is the lead Federal agency.

It is a long-established relationship, in terms of what they lead on

and they certainly have jurisdiction in this case.

We were only there in a support role to them. We work very

closely together on a day-to-day basis; and on spills, we augment

each other’s resources.

I do not know the particulars of the facts in this, but I will find

this out. There is a responsible party. Whoever that responsible

party is, the firm that was navigating that particular ship or the

owner of the ship; I do not know what the circumstances are. But

they are responsible for all of the cleanup cost.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. To a certain cap; we have gone well over that liability cap, and that was another question I was going to get if we
28

had time, which is whether you would consider administratively increasing the cap. Because the owners of vessel actually have said

that they would pay, and they have been paying out.

But they have more recently said that they do not want to pay

beyond the cap, and they expect that money to be reimbursed to

them from the trust fund. So we are well beyond what the liability

cap is for the vessel, the owners.

Mr. DUNNE. But the States, I believe, along with the Coast

Guard, could pursue further costs; whether or not they do it

through a court action or not, I do not know. It is premature for

me to say. It is not EPA’s responsibility where the Corps has got

the lead. But we will ask the Corps of Engineers for more details

and provide you with the answer.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I would just appreciate, certainly just by way of

follow-up or through the Chairman, whether it is appropriate to

provide me with some information. Because again, I think the

Army Corps and the Coast Guard have been very responsive. I do

not want to suggest in anyway that they have not been.

But certainly, you are the ones who really have the expertise and

help from the oversight function to make sure that the environmental consequences of that spill, long term in particular, are not

forgotten three months from now when the Army Corps of Engineers or the Coast Guard says, everything seems fine when, in fact,

there may be some more long-term consequences or remediation is

not complete.

So I would be interested in your looking into that and getting

back to me, either directly or through the Chairman; thank you.

Mr. DUNNE. We will do that, thank you.

[The information received follows:]
29
30

Mr. DUNCAN. Dr. Spinrad, did you want to add something to

that?

Dr. SPINRAD. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if I can very briefly. With respect to the second half of your question, Congresswoman, regarding the remediation activities, NOAA, by cooperative decision

among the agencies, has a Federal lead administrative trustee responsibility associated with the natural resource damage assessment. The trend nowadays is to try to do that through cooperative

damage assessment.

So over the next one to two years, NOAA will be developing that

assessment which will, of course, try to identify the associated costs

for the longer term impacts on the environment; thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Ehlers, is there anything else you want to get into?

[No response.]

Mr. DUNCAN. Dr. Spinrad, last year, the International Maritime

Organization approved new ballast water discharge standards to

prevent the introduction of invasive species.

We have held a couple of hearings on the standards, but the new

technology is not there even to implement the IMP standards. Is

that accurate, and what is NOAA’s position in that regard?

Dr. SPINRAD. I believe it is safe to say that NOAA’s position is

that an emphasis should be put on the monitoring and detection

aspects and the assessment.

Therefore, trying to identify the earliest incursions, if you will,

of some of these invasive species, for many of these, we recognize

that very, very low concentrations of the organisms can precipitate

a significant impact. Consequently, our view is that we need to be

extremely cautious with respect to identification of standards of

concentration, if you will, of some of these species.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, maybe I missed you saying this. But is there

a move in NOAA to require even stricter standards for which there

is no technology available?

Dr. SPINRAD. There is not a specific move for those kinds of

standards for which there is no technology available.

Mr. DUNCAN. Is this sort of a wish list, then?

Dr. SPINRAD. I think it is fair to say that we are trying to identify the full spectrum of species for which we need to be accountable for; concentrations which could result in an invasive event.

Mr. DUNCAN. Administrator Dunne, GAO says there are 300,000

or more brownfield sites around the country or perhaps even more.

I do not know; maybe you have a more accurate figure on that. But

all the cities, large and small, have brownfield sites all over the

country.

What I am wondering about, I am told that out of a $210 million

program, that your agency or your department is planning to spend

only about 14 percent of that money or $30 million on various

FTEs and contracts in regard to brownfields.

Is that accurate, or what do you have to say about that? What

does the Administration intend to do about this need to clean up

all these gas stations and various other brownfields locations that

we have around the country?
31

Mr. DUNNE. Well, as I think the budget justification says, we will

do 1,000 assessments that will lead to a certain number of cleanups. Our actual State amount from last year is $49.7 million. The $30 million, I assume that you are talking about salary expense and overhead, et cetera. Let me point out that since the

Superfund Law was enacted through this Committee action, we

now are in the position where we have an awful lot of open grants.

These are grants that have to be closed out statutorily.

Mr. DUNCAN. Let me correct one thing. What I am talking about

is, the bigger part of the brownfield budget, I am told, that money

is going for administration and management-type expenses; and

not very much of it really is going for the actual cleanup.

Mr. DUNNE. I do not think that is true, Congressman.

Mr. DUNCAN. You do not think that is true?

Mr. DUNNE. If you go take a look at the figures that we have got,

the vast majority of the money is going for cleanups; and then for

monies that go to State and Tribal organizations, to promote cleanups and help the local communities.

Our overhead rate, as I have looked across the EPA, in other programs, within the last number of weeks, is pretty much in tune.

Fourteen to fifteen percent is our salary and administrative costs.

Then we had certain costs that are associated with normal operations of programs.

So I believe that the bulk of the money is going for cleanups, and

the majority of that money is going to State and local governments

for the grants.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, you know, moving from brownfields to the

Superfund, for years, that has been a real criticism of the Superfund Program; that so much of the money, and in fact, some people

still say that it is as high as 50 percent of the money, is being

spent on administration and paperwork instead of actual cleanup

there.

In fact, I remember several years ago, I saw an article that said

85 percent of the money was going toward administration and paperwork of course, that was quite a few years ago. Where do we

stand there?

Mr. DUNNE. It depends upon what you call overhead. Let me cite

some figures for you. Right now, at EPA, we have 678 construction

projects, going at 420 individual sites. A lot of those are big, as I

mentioned before in my testimony. We started 27 new construction

projects last year.

Mr. DUNCAN. You started how many?

Mr. DUNNE. We started 27 new ones last year.

Mr. DUNCAN. That was 27 new ones, and you had how many ongoing?

Mr. DUNNE. Six hundred seventy-eight.

Mr. DUNCAN. Six hundred and seventy-eight ongoing.

Mr. DUNNE. So it is an enormous construction management program.

Mr. DUNCAN. How many will you complete in a typical year?

Mr. DUNNE. Last year we completed 40. This year, we think we

can complete 40. We are projecting for the 2006 budget, which we

are testifying on, another 40.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right.
32

Mr. DUNNE. So I do not think our costs are really out of the question. It is a very complicated act that the Congress passed 24 years

ago. Because of the liability issues involved, it takes an awful lot

of work between the enforcement people; not just the EPA people,

but the Justice Department people and ourselves, and then getting

construction off the ground.

So an awful lot of investigation and feasibility study has got to

be done. The record for 20 some years reflects the number of court

actions that have taken place. People were taking EPA to court because they did not think it was too fair.

We are somewhat over that hump, I think, in terms of an awful

lot of court actions. But the fact is, it was complicated. We have

now developed this enormous workload, and we see that workload

continuing for the next number of years. I believe that our costs

are in line with the work that is being done.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, when you say that it is an awfully complicated act that the Congress passed, do you think the act is too

complicated? Does it cause you problems in that regard?

Mr. DUNNE. It has been on the books for 24 years. I would hate

to see that change, because it would screw up everything if they

did.

Mr. DUNCAN. It would make even worse.

Mr. DUNNE. It would it even more complicated.

[Laughter.]

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I think that may be true. I remember we

passed the Tax Simplification Act of, I think in 1998, and it became

the longest, most complicated tax law ever written. So that may be

true.

Mr. Grumbles, you left this Subcommittee just before I came on

as Chairman, and you may be glad about that. But in the four

years now that you have been there, where are we getting the most

bang for the buck? Of all the problems and programs and so forth

that you deal with, what has been your most pleasant surprise and

what has been your biggest problem?

Mr. GRUMBLES. I had not prepared for this question, Mr. Chairman, but I welcome and I appreciate that very much.

I would say that one of the most important areas of success or

developing areas is watershed approaches through collaborations;

the National Estuaries Program and some of the regional offices

where EPA is not necessarily the regulator, but they are the

facilitator, in bringing together State and local entities. Examples

include, from my perspective, the Chesapeake Bay Program.

I think beyond the collaborations, an area the Agency thinks is

very important and significant, is through the core programs under

the Clean Water Act that relate to the pre-treatment.

The Pretreatment Program is one that, I think, is a real fundamental backbone of the act. The more we can continue to implement it in a way that recognizes that pollution prevention helps

minimize costs or the risks of upset at the sewage treatment plant,

it can help reduce the costs to the utilities and also reduce the risk

of non-compliance in violating the Clean Water Act.

I think that it continues to be a challenge for the Agency; how

to deal with wet weather flows and deal with CSOs and SSOs or

storm water program, whether it is a municipal storm water pro-
33

gram or the industrial storm water. It is a different situation when

it is not a routine discharge that is associated with some industrial

activity, coming out of a manufacturing pipe. It is related to the

weather and rainfall patterns.

Mr. DUNCAN. That has been the biggest problem. I will tell you, the Knoxville Utilities Board has just started a $300 million-plus

10 year program to deal with the SSOs and the CSOs and all the

problems associated with the storm water. But I guess another way

I could have put that is, other than your salary, what is the best

money that the EPA spends?

[Laughter.]

Mr. GRUMBLES. I would say that for us, water quality trading

and watershed-based permitting are two of the areas that can really lead to more effective, efficient, and equitable approaches towards impaired watersheds. So we want to pursue those. Those are

important areas for investment and collaboration with the many

stakeholders to pursue those areas.

I was really excited to hear that you are working on the Good

Samaritan legislation, too, because it is looking at ways to restore

impaired watersheds by interjecting some common sense and incentives for volunteer remediation.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I like that. In fact, we passed the first Good

Samaritan Law for the skies when I chaired the Aviation Subcommittee, and I am hopeful that we can do some work in that

area.

I will tell you this, I tell my staff that I like to hold hearings.

I would like more hearings, because I learn something at every

hearing. You all have been an outstanding panel and have contributed a great deal, in my opinion. I appreciate it very much that you

take time out from your busy schedules to be here with us today,

or that you took time out. So that will conclude this hearing.

[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86Æ