U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

95–818 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 114–56 

IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED WATERS OF THE 

UNITED STATES RULE ON STATE AND LOCAL 

GOVERNMENTS AND STAKEHOLDERS 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WATER, 

AND WILDLIFE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 8, 2015—FAIRBANKS, AK 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RYAN JACKSON, Majority Staff Director 

BETTINA POIRIER, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WATER, AND WILDLIFE

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

APRIL 8, 2015 

OPENING STATEMENT 

Sullivan, Hon. Dan, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska ................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Bishop, Hon. Click, Alaska State Senator from Senate District C ...................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Brower, Charlotte E., Mayor, North Slope Borough ............................................. 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Taylor, Sara, Executive Director, Citizens’ Advisory Commission on Federal 

Areas ..................................................................................................................... 26 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

Mauger, Sue, Science Director, Cook Inletkeeper ................................................. 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Wrigley, Bryce, President, Alaska Farm Bureau .................................................. 36 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

MacKinnon, John, Executive Director, Associated General Contractors of 

Alaska ................................................................................................................... 40 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42 

Williams, Austin, Alaska Director of Law and Policy, Trout Unlimited ............. 46 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

Crockett, Deantha, Executive Director, Alaska Miners Association ................... 53 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56 

Carroll, Shannon, attorney and commercial fisherman ....................................... 59 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 61 

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS 

Letters to Senator Sullivan: 

From Flowline Alaska, Inc., dated April 13, 2015 ......................................... 76 

From Great Northwest, Inc., undated ............................................................ 79 

From Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc., dated April 15, 

2015 ................................................................................................................ 81 

(1) 

IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED WATERS OF 

THE UNITED STATES RULE ON STATE AND 

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND STAKEHOLDERS 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WATER, AND WILDLIFE

Fairbanks, AK. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA 

Senator SULLIVAN. The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and 

Wildlife will now come to order, and I would please ask all the witnesses to take their seats up front at the witness stand, please. 

And we have two witnesses on the line from Barrow and Juneau. 

I want to thank everybody for being here. I’m Senator Dan Sullivan, Senator from Alaska. We are here to discuss the proposed 

Waters of the United States rule by the Environmental Protection 

Agency. I know that some of you have had to travel to be here. 

Most of you had to shuffle competing schedules, so I want to thank 

everybody. I appreciate all of you for participating today. 

This is an official hearing of the U.S. Senate Environment and 

Public Works Committee. I serve as the chair of the Subcommittee 

on Waters, Wildlife, and Fisheries. In Washington, DC, we have 

held numerous hearings with the EPA Administrator, Assistant 

Secretary of the Army, State government representatives, and 

stakeholders about this issue. This hearing is a continuation of 

these efforts, and it will also give voice to a cross-section of Alaskans on this proposed rule and its possible impacts. 

Beyond those testifying today, the subcommittee heard testimony 

from many Alaskans in Anchorage 2 days ago, including the Resource Development Council, Alaska Municipal League, Arctic 

Slope Regional Corporation, Alyeska Pipeline. They joined threefifths of States in the United States that oppose the rule and more 

than 300 trade groups and associations from across the Country 

that oppose the rule. 

I want to state at the outset, certainly, as Alaska’s Senator, the 

obvious, but sometimes I think it needs to be stated: We clearly, 

as Alaskans, believe in the importance of clean water. We’ve seen 

the Clean Water Act over the years do many important positive 

things. I think we certainly have some of the cleanest water, the 

most pristine environment of any place in the world, and Alaskans 
2 

cherish that. I’ve also told the EPA administrator we probably care 

about that living here more than any EPA official in Washington, 

DC, does. So I think that’s important. 

I also think that it’s important today to emphasize that this 

hearing is also about respecting our citizens, as I think almost 

every witness will testify. Certainly, they all did in Anchorage. This 

is a unique rule that will impact Alaska more than any other State 

by far. And we have certainly unique aspects of our State that have 

not been taken into consideration with regard to this rule, and it’s 

important for us in Washington, the Senators in Washington, to 

bring Washington, DC, to Alaska, to the State, so we can hear directly from you as opposed to having everybody have to fly thousands of miles to Washington to testify on this rule. 

Alaska is no stranger to overreaching Federal agencies; however, 

it should be stressed that the proposed Waters of the U.S. rule may 

be one of the most massive expansions of Federal jurisdiction we 

have seen to date. Unlike much of the Federal overreach that has 

impacted Alaska, the tentacles of the Clean Water Act extend far 

beyond Federal lands and this rule would impact the ability for 

State and private landowners to use their land. 

Already a huge percentage of Alaska falls under the Clean Water 

Act jurisdiction. Alaska has 43,000 miles of coastline, millions of 

lakes, more than 43 percent of our State’s surface area is composed 

of wetlands, which accounts for 65 percent of all the wetlands in 

the United States. A whopping 63 percent of the Nation’s jurisdictional waters under the Clean Water Act are in Alaska, meaning 

those who are building or doing business on or near those waters 

have to wrangle with the Federal Government to get permits or approval. 

Let me be clear, there is no doubt that many of our wonderful 

lakes and rivers, such as the Yukon and Chena and their tributaries are jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act. No one is suggesting otherwise. Instead, we are here to talk about the proposed 

rule and regulations of waters that I believe Congress never intended to be jurisdictional under the act. As I mentioned earlier, 

Alaska has some of the cleanest waterways in the world, leading 

to our vibrant world-class fisheries and award-winning drinking 

water. Concerns over this rulemaking are not at all aimed at jeopardizing those characteristics which we all hold dear and that are 

fundamental to the identity of Alaska. 

Instead, our efforts are about clarifying jurisdiction and, if it’s a 

major expansion of Federal jurisdiction, pushing back on Federal 

agencies that are asserting such authority, such authority over 

even the possibility of roadside ditches, culverts, stormwater systems, isolated ponds, and activities on adjacent lands, bypassing 

Congress and ducking Supreme Court rulings. Regardless of this 

rule, discharge of pollutants into these features would remain subject to Clean Water Act regulations. 

If the rule is finalized in its current form, it would mean that 

many Alaskans could be subject to having to get a permit from the 

EPA in order to do things such as dig ditches in their backyards; 

it would mean that a farmer might have to get a permit to plow 

new land. It would be a huge burden possibly on our placer miners 

in the Interior. It would mean that harbors, roads, pesticide con-
3 

trol, and certainly natural resource development could fall under a 

more rigorous Federal permitting process, effectively granting the 

EPA the power to dictate energy and infrastructure policy in most 

of Alaska. This is not hyperbole. Just ask the Idaho couple who 

wanted to build a house on just over a half-acre of their own private land that happened to be near a lake. The EPA determined 

that their property was a wetland and forced them to stop development, rehabilitate the property to its natural state, or face tens of 

thousands of dollars in fines a day. With this rulemaking, more 

landowners across the U.S. would be subject to the same treatment. 

Just a couple of weeks ago, the Senate passed by a strong bipartisan vote an amendment that I co-sponsored with Senator John 

Barrasso of Wyoming that would rein in the scope of this rulemaking. This amendment was an important bipartisan first step as 

we craft legislation to ensure that the Clean Water Act is focused 

on maintaining pristine water quality. We sent a strong bipartisan 

message that the Clean Water Act should not be transformed into 

a tool to expand the authority of the EPA without congressional authority and control entirely unrelated activities. 

So, again, I want to thank everybody for being here. We have a 

very distinguished panel of witnesses. As the chair, I want to emphasize that we have selected witnesses, both here and in Anchorage, who are opposed to this rule and who are in favor of this rule, 

and we want to be respectful of all viewpoints. We will have two 

panels today to discuss this, and we will begin here in a minute. 

I just want to mention one final thing. Yesterday, in a presentation 

that I gave, there were questions on whether other Alaskans, other 

Fairbanksans could weigh in on this proposed rule in addition to 

the invited witnesses that we have here today. And, as chair of the 

subcommittee, I am requesting to keep the record of this hearing 

open for the next 10 days for all additional written testimony from 

any Alaskan, whether they support or oppose this rule, so all of 

your voices can be heard. 

I’m going to provide for the record an address to send any additional written testimony from anybody here or other Alaskans who 

want to participate. The address would be to my office: Senator 

Dan Sullivan, Chair of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, 

and Waters of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and 

that is in the Dirksen Senate Building, room number SDB–40A, 

Washington, DC, 20515. And, again, we want to encourage all Alaskans to participate with regard to the importance of their voices 

being heard with regard to this rule. 

So we will begin with our first panel and that—again, we’re very, 

very pleased with the distinguished witnesses that we have. The 

first panel is going to be remotely testifying, first, from Senator 

Click Bishop who is obviously the State senator from the Interior; 

and, Charlotte Brower, the mayor of the North Slope Borough. I believe that both Senator Bishop and Mayor Brower are on the line. 

We will begin with the testimony of Senator Bishop and we’ll move 

to the testimony of Mayor Brower, and then I’m going to ask them 

a few questions, and then we will turn to our second panel of distinguished witnesses. 

Senator Bishop, if you’re on the line, the floor is yours. 
4 

STATEMENT OF HON. CLICK BISHOP, ALASKA STATE SENATOR 

FROM SENATE DISTRICT C 

Senator BISHOP. Thank you, Chairman Sullivan, and welcome 

home. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Senator BISHOP. As previously stated, my name is Click Bishop, 

currently serving as Alaska State senator representing west Fairbanks and a broad sweep of rural Alaska, including 63 small villages situated in the Yukon-Koyukuk, Tanana, and Copper River 

Valleys. As former labor commissioner, I am intimately familiar 

with the impacts of Government decisions on our economy and on 

our working families through delay or outright denial of resource 

development projects. 

My previous career was a heavy equipment operator working on 

the TransAlaska Pipeline and many other associated construction 

projects throughout Alaska. In my younger life, I spent over 18 

years racing Yukon 800 style outboard riverboats on Alaska’s Interior rivers, the Tanana and the Yukon. So it’s safe to say that everything I’ve been involved in was, since I got out of high school 

and quite a bit of what I did before, has taken place on or near 

waters of the United States, especially under these new definitions. 

In speaking with you today, it’s not my intention to regurgitate 

a long list of facts and counter-arguments showing how and where 

Federal agencies have overstepped their boundaries in this action. 

Those have been entered into the record hundreds of times after 

the proposed rule was published in the Federal Record over a year 

ago. Instead, I want to sound a warning that there will be a huge 

negative impact on the Nation and Alaska’s economy if the EPA 

and the Corps adopt these definitional changes, which it appears 

they are proceeding to do. I fear the impacts of the EPA’s new enhanced and onerous powers generated by these proposed changes, 

impacts on small family owned and operated businesses as well as 

large projects proposed in Alaska. 

It’s interesting to note that whenever a Government agency like 

the EPA or the Corps of Engineers seeks to clarify the meaning or 

a definition of a term or a phrase, it very seldom narrows its definition, but rather broadens it to areas never envisioned by those who 

passed the Clean Water Act in 1972. Wouldn’t it be more honest 

to look at the programs enabling legislation and keep any clarifications as true to the original intent of what Congress passed? As so 

often happens, we also see that the words agencies are proposing 

to use to clarify and better define their regulations only further 

muddy the waters. How will they determine what is a significant 

connection to downstream water quality? What is a significant 

nexus? 

I note, also, that agencies are headlong rushed to impose this 

rule, ignoring the public process, in the case of their Connectivity 

Report, getting the decision done before the so-called science upon 

which this decision is supposed to be made, is available. While 

stakeholders from State agencies to local governments express 

their concerns about this cart-before-the-horse process, the EPA 

and the Corps move forward regardless. The agencies have moved 

forward their proposed changes without consultation with State 

and local agencies that will be required to implement and enforce 
5 

the changes. In addition, they have moved forward with no regard 

or meaningful analysis of the fiscal impact to State and local agencies. 

It’s clear to me the EPA in lockstep with the Corps view it as 

their mission to control every human activity within the water column, from the moment the raindrop hits the earth until it diffuses 

into the ocean. We, in Alaska, we take great pride in our State’s 

superlatives, which set us apart from our sister States. Little 

things like our millions of acres of wetlands, millions of lakes, 

30,000 miles of shoreline. We know it’s cold and dark here and 

there’s midnight sun in the summer. I see no evidence that the 

agencies will accommodate our unique features such as permafrost, 

a pervasive feature found in 63 percent of the State, yet 

unacknowledged in the new proposed regulatory scheme. Permafrost is an inhibitor of water flow; it’s a sink for the storage of 

water. It should be specifically excluded from these regulations. 

Again, we are not sure how the agencies will determine what is 

a significant nexus, but there is simply no nexus between 

cryogenically isolated permafrost and waters of the United States. 

Unique as we may be in Alaska in regard to this new definition of 

waters of the United States, we are truly in the same boat as all 

our sister States and territories. With this definition change, we 

will see projects shut down in Anchorage, Sheridan, Wyoming, Seattle, Washington, and Topeka, Kansas. 

With that being said, I’d just like to wrap up in summary. This 

whole wetlands adjacent regulation is the EPA’s attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court. I don’t know if the EPA knows this 

or not, but the Supreme Court is the highest law in the land. They 

get the last word and they have spoken. Implementing this adjacent regulation would overturn the Great Northwest decision and 

that has terrible implications for Alaskans all over the State. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Bishop follows:] 
6 
7 
8 
9 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Senator Bishop, for that very 

powerful testimony. I look forward to digging a little deeper with 

some of the questions. 

Mayor Brower, if you’re still on the line, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLOTTE E. BROWER, MAYOR, NORTH 

SLOPE BOROUGH 

Mayor BROWER. Chairman Sullivan, good morning [speaks in 

Inupiat language]. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Good morning. 

Mayor BROWER. My name is Charlotte Brower. I am mayor of the 

North Slope Borough. I am also an Inupiat, the wife of a whaling 

captain, and mother to 6 children and 26 grandchildren ranging 

from 21 years old to 2 weeks old. 

Thank you for the invitation to address the subcommittee today 

regarding the proposed rule put forward by the EPA and the Corps 

of Engineers, which they define the jurisdiction of those two agencies to regulate waters of the United States under the Clean Water 

Act. 

I understand the proposed rule was submitted yesterday to the 

White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which is 

typically one of the last steps taken before a proposed rule is finalized. It is our sincere hope that the agencies have taken into consideration the comments we submitted jointly with the Inupiat 

Community of the Arctic Slope and the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation to the agencies in the record, which expressed our serious 

concerns with the proposed rule and the disproportionate impacts 

that the proposed rule would have on our community. 

As you know, the North Slope Borough is the largest municipality in the United States in terms of land mass and serves as the 

regional government for eight villages within 89,000 square miles 

of the Alaska Arctic. Over 70 percent of our nearly 8,000 full residents are Inupiat Eskimo who continue to rely heavily on the natural environment for subsistence and for food security. While the 

borough believes it is very important to protect our waters and wetlands, we also believe that the proposed rule will cause much more 

harm to the borough and its residents than the EPA and the Corps 

of Engineers understand. 

The scope of the proposed rule’s impact on Alaska is immense 

and its impact on Alaskans, Alaska Natives, and the North Slope 

is disproportionate to the rest of the country. 43.3 percent of Alaska’s surface area is wetlands. In the Lower 48, wetlands only occupy 5.2 percent of the surface area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service calculates that 47 million acres in the Arctic foothills and 

the coastal plains are wetlands. Together, these areas correspond 

roughly with the borders of the North Slope Borough. 

It appears that all 47 million acres, more than 80 percent of the 

entire North Slope region, could be considered jurisdictional waters 

of the United States under the proposed rule. I am a mayor of a 

borough that is larger than the State of Utah. Most of the North 

Slope region is characterized by tundra and permafrost, yet the 

proposed rule has left no consideration for any of the unique aspects of Alaska’s wetlands. Neither the word ‘‘tundra’’ nor the word 

‘‘permafrost’’ appears anywhere in the proposed rule. Unlike the 
10 

many exceptions in the proposed rule that are created for farming 

and other preferences, the proposed rule creates no exception for 

any material portions of the wetlands in Alaska, yet Alaska’s waters and wetlands are unusual in many ways that may make them 

unsuitable for this broad view assertion of jurisdiction by the agencies. For one thing, many of Alaska’s wetlands are frozen for 9 

months out of the year and lie on top of permafrost. Also, unlike 

wetlands in temperate zones, Arctic wetlands which lie above thousands of feet of frozen permafrost are not connected to apply for— 

subject to water flow. 

As one more example, because water on top of permafrost travels 

across frozen tundra surface in sheet flows, these wetlands provide 

little function in controlling the runoff. 

To conclude, we believe that the proposed rule in its truest form 

will impose enormous burdens on the North Slope with very little 

benefit to the environment. For thousands of years our people have 

relied on the natural environment for subsistence purposes and the 

social fabric of our community revolves around subsistence traditions. But the ability of the Inupiat to maintain our traditions, our 

communities, and the rudimentary services that make it possible 

for us to survive and thrive on the North Slope all depends upon 

our access to and our ability to use natural resources. 

The borough is the sole provider for nearly every essential service available to Alaska Natives and other residents on Alaska’s 

North Slope such as housing, utilities, first responders, health care, 

and education. Over 97 percent of the municipal budget used to 

provide these services is derived from property taxes collected on 

oil and gas infrastructure. Consequently, any [inaudible] defining 

natural resource development attributable to [inaudible] permitting 

or mitigation requirements will have a direct and immediate impact on the borough’s ability to pay for the services on which the 

health and welfare of residents depends. And because most of the 

land around the communities we serve would be classified as wetlands under the new regulation, the borough will face steep costs 

any time it attempts to provide new services or infrastructure that 

impacts wetlands. 

Under the proposed rule, 80 percent of the North Slope could be 

considered waters of the United States as compared to 5 percent 

in the rest of the Country. Imagine how the Governor of New York 

State would react if 80 percent of the State of New York was suddenly considered waters of the United States [inaudible] regulation 

under the Clean Water Act. We’re almost twice the size of New 

York and yet the EPA and Corps of Engineers did not bother to tailor their rule in a way that would make sense for our State and 

our region. At the very least, the proposed rule needs to be rewritten to clearly and unambiguously address the unique nature of 

wetlands that lies on top of permafrost. 

Bottom line, the proposed rule would have a disproportionate and 

entirely negative impact on the North Slope Borough and the 

Inupiat people. This is why we stand unified with all of our sister 

regional organizations in opposition to this proposed rulemaking 

and [inaudible] constituents. We thank you for the opportunity to 

testify this morning. 

[The prepared statement of Mayor Brower follows:] 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you for 

that very powerful testimony. Congrats on the new grandchild. I 

hope the child and mother are doing well. I do want to just make 

a quick comment on your very insightful point about the State of 

New York and the Governor of New York and how they would feel 

if it wasn’t 5 percent, but close to 85 percent of their territory being 

impacted. I think that it would be very different. And you’re right, 

there’s no element of addressing any aspect of the uniqueness of 

Alaska in this proposed rule. But you mentioned Governors. It 

should be noted that 35 States, including Alaska, a State official 

from DEC testified 2 days ago in Anchorage, 35 States oppose this 

rule and want it changed or either completely done away with, 

which I think speaks to your broader point about how Governors 

and States view this current proposed rule. 

Well, Senator Bishop and Mayor Brower, I was going to ask a series of questions. I’ll just make it easy, so they’ll be really addressed to both of you so either of you can respond or build on the 

other’s answers. Let me first by just asking, given that you represent very large parts of the State of Alaska, as you mentioned, 

Mayor Brower, and I’m sure it’s the same with Senator Bishop, the 

geographic scope of the responsibilities that you cover is larger, 

both of you, than many States in the Lower 48. 

Can you just briefly describe to the extent your constituents are 

aware of this rule and one of the—you know, one of the problems 

with a rule like this is that oftentimes our constituents are not 

aware and then all of a sudden it becomes a final rule and they’re 

surprised. But to the extent your constituents are aware, what has 

been their reaction? 

Senator BISHOP. Chairman Sullivan. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Senator BISHOP. I’ll take the first stab at that. It—I would note, 

you know, even as late as last night at 9:30 after I got done here 

in the building, I’m still fielding phone calls from concerned citizens, business owners, and as early as 6:30 this morning I’m on my 

phone again. I’ve been contacted, you know, by all forms, e-mails, 

phones, faxes, et cetera, et cetera, postings on Facebook. They’re all 

united in their opposition to this rule, which, you know, if you look 

up the definition of ‘‘Federal overreach’’ in the dictionary, you’ll 

find a picture of the EPA extra—and in the original definition of 

‘‘navigable waters’’ to eventually include every drop of water. They 

are not happy. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Madam Mayor, how about your constituents? 

Mayor BROWER. Senator Sullivan, thank you for that question. 

My constituents, who are predominantly Inupiat people, everyday 

common people, people who are involved also in their Native village corporations, in their tribes, in their cities, who thrive every 

day in hopes that the North Slope Borough would help in every 

way. We do help, and they’re not fully aware of this proposed rule 

and the impacts that it would have for the future of the North 

Slope, not because of what we’re going after for the North Slope 

Borough, but for the people, for the existence of the people and the 

ruling that it would make. And I’m afraid that once this is out as 

the way it is, what is going to come down the road that’s going to 
21 

be like a big cannonball being thrown all over the North Slope, and 

that’s the fear that I have. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and I will note in 

the testimony in Anchorage 2 days ago, there was a senior executive from Arctic Slope Regional Corporation who testified and they 

were very opposed and had very detailed concerns about the rule. 

Let me turn to the issue—Senator Bishop, I know that you’ve 

been a leader on this throughout the State, the issue of federalism. 

You know, there’s been a lot of concerns that this rulemaking process was very rushed and, indeed, it was very rushed. And there is 

an executive order; it’s an executive order numbered 13132. It’s 

called the federalism Executive Order and it states, ‘‘When undertaking to formulate and implement policies that have federalism 

implications, agencies shall, in determining whether to establish 

uniform national standards, they shall consult with appropriate 

State and local officials as to the need for national standards and 

any alternatives that would limit the scope of national standards 

or otherwise preserve State prerogatives and authority.’’ 

Madam Mayor, that federalism Executive Order is in addition to 

the trust responsibilities the Federal Government has with regard 

to consulting with Alaska’s Native people. Do you believe that the 

federalism Executive Order in this case was abided by? 

Mayor BROWER. Senator Sullivan, no, we were never properly 

consulted on this nor was it consulted to—directly to the tribes as 

well. So there is a failure of communication. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Senator Bishop. 

Senator BISHOP. Senator Sullivan, I concur with Mayor Brower. 

No, they obviously didn’t read their own memo down at the EPA. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you. I want to dig into an issue that 

you raised, which I think is very important for Alaskans to know 

about. Senator Bishop, if you could talk a little bit more about the 

Connectivity Report. And, just for the record, the Connectivity Report was a report that the EPA was using to base—as a basis of 

the science to move forward with the rule; however, the rule was 

promulgated well before the Connectivity Report was ever made 

public, which, as you can see, as you mentioned, is a bit of the cart 

before the horse. 

Can you talk a little bit more about that issue? I think most people are unaware of that and it does show the rushed process. 

Senator BISHOP. Yes. Briefly, I just—you know, in reviewing the 

three Supreme Court decisions as it relates to your question at 

hand, I just find it—I’m just—I’m flabbergasted at the EPA, you 

know, on these three Supreme Court decisions on the connectivity 

piece. The Supreme Court has spoken very clearly on this, but yet 

the EPA just doesn’t get it and they’re trying to circumvent the Supreme Court. And I just find it—I’m overwhelmed. I just can’t believe that they can’t—you’ve got three Supreme Court decisions 

that’s written in plain English, even I understand it, but yet the 

EPA doesn’t understand it and they still want to try to connect 

these waters. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Let me ask a related question with regard to 

a simple but critical issue that I’m sure I’m going to dig into with 

regards to the next panel as well. 
22 

Do you see this, Mayor Brower and Senator Bishop, do you see 

this as an expansion of the EPA’s jurisdiction over waters in Alaska as the rule is currently written? 

Senator BISHOP. Chairman Sullivan, this is definitely, definitely 

a grab to include all waters, everything they can get their hands 

on. 

Senator SULLIVAN. So you would see this as an expansion of the 

EPA’s jurisdiction? 

Senator BISHOP. Absolutely. Absolutely. You know, and furthermore I just—you know, what really floors me about this whole 

process is they have not done a cost-benefit analysis on what the 

impact is to the United States economy or the Alaskan economy. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Madam Mayor, do you see this as an expansion of the EPA’s jurisdiction over waters in Alaska? 

Mayor BROWER. Yes. Senator Sullivan, this would have a tremendous impact on the lives of the whole North Slope, not only the 

North Slope, but the whole State of Alaska. Their continuous presence that they want to do, they’re doing it in the wrong way. We 

hardly ever see EPA up in our area. The only time that EPA comes 

out is when they’re having the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission meetings and they’re there talking about rules that concerns 

[inaudible] or rules that they have to do. And they’re not—they’re 

just doing a textbook theory; it’s not going to work. They need to 

come to us and face us and then turn every waters, every—all our 

land has been submerged in water, but yet they’re not coming to 

us. They’re not seeing the fact that we can live on top of snow, we 

can travel on top of snow, we can travel on frozen oceans and go 

out whaling, everything. 

But, you know what, it does become spring and it does become 

water and it always appears like it’s wetlands, but we’ve lived with 

it for ten thousands of years. They are not here; they’re living in 

DC. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you for that very powerful testimony. 

Let me go on to another issue that, Senator Bishop, you raised and 

I would like again both of our distinguished witnesses to address 

this. 

The EPA has stated in their cost-benefit that there would not 

be—there would not be—significant costs with regard to implementing this rule. Do you—Senator Bishop, do you agree with 

that? Do you agree that there would be no significant costs? And 

in particular with regard to the Interior, what do you think the impact would be on the small placer miners that are still trying to 

eke out a living in this part of the State? 

Senator BISHOP. Oh, you know, and that’s a good question, you 

know, because they haven’t done a cost-benefit analysis. It would— 

I would say it would be in the millions of dollars and put—you 

know, it has the potential to put 360 to 460 small placer miners 

out of business, but bigger than that, we’re trying to monetize Alaska’s North Slope gas with the AK-Language project and to date 

just the impacts of the wetlands mitigation disturbance just on the 

route that’s been identified to date has already added a quarter of 

a billion dollars to the project that’s already—you know, it needs 

to be looking at every nook, cranny, and corner to save a nickel. 

And proposing this rule, who knows what it will add to the cost of 
23 

that pipeline, and that’s Alaska’s economic future for the next hundred years. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Madam Mayor, do you agree with the EPA, 

there’s no significant cost to this rule? 

Mayor Brower, are you still with us? 

Mayor BROWER. Yes. There will be a future where we’ll struggle 

to provide basic services because of the increased cost of wetlands 

mitigation. We have already captured a glimpse of this future with 

our recent efforts to permit an expansion of a local landfill. The 

cost assessed on the borough for wetland mitigation exceeded $1 

million, not including what we have to spend throughout the permitting process. That’s 1 million less dollars to pay for teachers, 

health aides, for police officers, or to provide any number of other 

services. 

Even worse, we know that much of this money won’t be used to 

benefit the North Slope. Part of the reason is that we have been 

such good environmental stewards. We don’t have toxic land to 

clean up like they do in the Lower 48. It seems like in some ways 

we’re being penalized for being responsible. In addition, the borough’s rural villages are mostly populated by the Inupiat Eskimos 

and they all lie in the areas that would be classified as wetlands. 

Nearly every kind of construction activity would be required from 

impact to wetlands. So our villages would be constrained by additional permitting requirements and mitigation if they required any 

additional infrastructure in their communities. There is no other 

place in America where the impacts of the proposed rule would fall 

so heavily on one minority. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, again. That was very powerful 

testimony. And your point about wetlands mitigation came up in 

the Anchorage hearing and perhaps in the next panel we can discuss that because that is another area where Alaska is clearly, 

uniquely impacted. 

I also want to just mention for the record with regard to the 

issue of cost, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which is a Federal law, 

requires agencies to examine the impacts of a proposed regulation 

on small government entities, like we have in Alaska, and small 

businesses. The EPA and the Corps, under this rulemaking, instead certified that this proposed rule will not have significant impacts on small entities, businesses, or small communities. They certified that. 

Kathie Wasserman, the executive director of the Alaska Municipal League, which represents over 130 small communities in Alaska, testified that that was completely incorrect. More importantly, 

in some ways, the Obama administration’s own Small Business Association, the SBA, the chief counsel for the SBA Office of Advocacy, determined that this certification by the EPA and the Corps 

was in error and improper. Under the regulatory act, the Corps 

and the EPA are required to conduct small business advocacy review panels to determine costs, as Senator Bishop mentioned. They 

failed to do that on this rule, which led to the comments filed by 

the SBA of the Obama administration’s Office of Advocacy, and 

they stated, ‘‘Advocacy, the SBA, and small businesses are extremely concerned about the rule as proposed. The rule will have 

a direct and potentially costly impact on small businesses. The lim-
24 

ited economic analysis,’’ which is what Senator Bishop mentioned, 

‘‘which the agency submitted with the rule provides ample evidence 

of a potentially significant economic impact. The SBA Advocacy Office advises the agencies to withdraw the rule and conduct an 

SBAR panel prior to promulgating any further rule on this issue.’’ 

This is the Obama administration’s own Small Business Administration saying the rule needs to be withdrawn because of its negative impacts on small businesses. 

So, Senator Bishop, Madam Mayor, I think that you even have 

elements of the Obama administration that are in agreement with 

you. 

I’d like to conclude by asking a final question. Do you think the 

EPA would have benefited from the assistance of those with actual 

knowledge of wetlands, of the waters of Alaska in your communities and the unique hydrology and geographic features that we 

have here before promulgating a rule that is the classic Washington, DC, one-size-fits-all approach to clean water? We all want 

clean water. As I mentioned at the outset, Alaskans do a much better job than the EPA and Washington on keeping our waters clean. 

Do you think that this rule would have benefited from the input 

of constituents from your senate district, Senator Bishop, or you, 

Madam Mayor, constituents from the North Slope Borough or you 

and your staff? 

Senator BISHOP. Chairman Sullivan, it would behoove the department greatly to take into serious consideration with boots on 

the ground, I mean boots on the ground, not boots in Washington, 

DC, but boots on the ground walking from maybe Kaktovik to Barrow looking at what permafrost looks like, or walking from the 

Charlie River to Fort Yukon looking at what the ground looks like. 

And, I mean, I’m serious, this is—I’m just flabbergasted. You know, 

again, you said it very eloquently: it’s done in Washington, DC, it’s 

done in a vacuum. The people—if I would have proposed a regulation like this at the Department of Labor without giving the people 

of Alaska their full and just due or a proper hearing and proper 

notification, I would have been strung up by my bootstraps. 

And the last thing I’d like to say in closing is—you might want 

to have your staff reference this and send a copy to the EPA. In 

President Obama’s State of the State speech 4 years ago, on page 

2 or page 3, he says, ‘‘Where my agencies are overreaching and stifling business in the United States, I’m going to work to lessen that 

impact.’’ 

They need to go read the President’s own memo from his State 

of the State speech. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Senator Bishop. Madam Mayor, 

would the EPA have benefited from the very, very significant expertise and wisdom and traditional knowledge that exists on the 

North Slope before promulgating this rule? 

Mayor BROWER. Yes, we’d like to say that Alaska is a unique and 

a special place, and that is especially true in the context of our geography and hydrology. No other State in our union has tundra or 

permafrost, and many people in the Lower 48 fail to grasp the 

sheer size and expanse of our State and regions. As I mentioned 

in my comments, the proposed rule does not even reference these 

critical features. On the North Slope, particularly, relatively little 
25 

is known about the nature and function of our Arctic wetlands and 

much of what we do know has come from studies conducted by the 

oil industry. 

Given these facts, I don’t believe that EPA has the information 

that’s needed to make an informed ruling. It is important for the 

Federal Government to recognize the role that the State and local 

municipalities can play in the permitting process. Our local knowledge and expertise is critical in recognizing impacts and mitigating 

negative consequences associated with a potential project. State 

and local governments are also more in tuned with the desires of 

the local communities and are well-equipped to understand the 

proper balance between facilitating economic development and the 

protection of the environment. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Well, I want to thank both of you for your 

very powerful testimony. I will note for the record, sometimes the 

written record doesn’t convey the sense of frustration and exasperation that these two important witnesses have articulated, but it 

was clearly there. And they represent very, very important elements of the State, large swaths of the State. And, for the record, 

I want to note that. 

Senator Bishop, Mayor Brower, do you have any concluding comments that you’d like to leave before we move to the next panel? 

Senator BISHOP. Yes. Chairman Sullivan, thank you so much for 

coming home, holding this hearing in Fairbanks and throughout 

Alaska. It’s greatly appreciated. And don’t give up the fight. Keep 

fighting the fight and we’re behind you 110 percent. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, senator. Madam Mayor, any concluding comments? 

Mayor BROWER. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. I personally want 

to thank you for [inaudible] me as mayor of the North Slope Borough and as an Inupiat woman, very strong in issues that you have 

in my region. And I think that the EPA needs to delay implementing this rule in Alaska until it conducts public meetings of 

which you are giving throughout the towns and villages that would 

be so heavily impacted by this rulemaking. I don’t think our people 

understand the extent this rulemaking will impact their lives. I 

also think the agencies should conduct an extensive analysis of the 

Arctic hydrology environment and have a better understanding of 

our region before they implement this rule. 

And thank you very much for having this in Fairbanks, and I 

apologize, I am between three meetings, and I thank you very 

much for allowing me to testify; although I would have loved to 

have testified in every one and be very vibrant in what I say. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Well, thank you both again for your powerful 

testimony and we really appreciate the insights that you provided 

to the EPW committee. These will be important as we move forward with regard to the national debate on this rule. 

So we’re going to move forward from the first panel and we’re 

now going to move on to our second panel of distinguished witnesses. We have seven witnesses. We will have 5-minute statements from each, and then we will then conduct a series of questions and answers. 
26 

So why don’t we begin with Sara Taylor, the executive director 

of the Citizens’ Advisory Committee on Federal Areas. 

STATEMENT OF SARA TAYLOR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

CITIZENS’ ADVISORY COMMISSION ON FEDERAL AREAS 

Ms. TAYLOR. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to testify 

today and especially thank you for coming to Alaska to have hearings on this very important issue. 

For the record, my name is Sara Taylor. I am the executive director of the Citizens’ Advisory Commission on Federal Areas, commonly known as CACFA. The CACFA was established by the Alaska State Legislature in 1981 to monitor and mitigate negative impacts to Alaskans from the complex mandates, diverse management schemes, and highly discretionary rules and regulations that 

apply to just about 222 million acres of our State. We work with 

individuals and agencies to safeguard and preserve the rights and 

interests of Alaskans and we maintain decades of institutional 

memory of engagement with over a dozen Federal agencies. 

I could explain in great detail how the proposed rule is legally 

indefensible or just really bad public policy, but I’d much rather 

spend the time talking about what it means to Alaskans. One recurring theme of management of Federal lands in Alaska is a 

manifest paternalism, blind to our needs and experiences which stifles our opportunity for social and economic autonomy and prosperity. We are quite accustomed to and frankly tired of being the 

subject of a table-top exercise thousands of miles away. In many 

ways, the proposed rule is very emblematic of this approach to 

Alaska. 

When the agencies say that Alaskan waters require Federal protection, they mean protection from us, the people whose very survival depends on clean water. To most Americans, Alaska is an 

idea. It’s a trophy hunt. It’s a dream vacation. It’s a post card. It’s 

a reality show. It’s a means of preservation and atonement for the 

industrialized state of our Nation. But Alaska is not an abstract 

concept to us. Alaska is our home. This is our being and water is 

the intravenous system which feeds us both spiritually and physically. 

The Clean Water Act recognizes that there are no better stewards of clean water than the people who fish in it and swim in it 

and drink it, and the State of Alaska has the authority and the responsibility and the very detailed expertise to manage water regardless of jurisdiction in our State. And the regulation of water 

and land use is a very traditional State and local power that deserves both legal and intuitive deference, but the EPA and the 

Corps of Engineers did not even consult with the State in developing this rulemaking, and this rulemaking unapologetically hijacks those powers and obligations. But Alaskans do more than depend on our water. We also understand it and if our water needs 

protection, it’s from administrators who do not understand it. 

Alaska has more wetlands than all the other States combined. 

Alaska has more coastline than all the other States combined, but 

the proposed rule and the 2013 draft Connectivity Report completely failed to acknowledge our very unique geomorphological and 

hydrologic conditions. These would be the conditions that apply to 
27 

the vast majority of areas impacted by this rulemaking, things that 

have been mentioned like permafrost, like tundra, spruce bogs, 

muskegs, just those types of situations, ice fields, glaciers. It’s confusing. It’s very confusing to see how this proposed rule will actually impact Alaska, which begs the question as to why application 

of this rule is left to agencies who do not care or do not know 

enough to even include the consideration of these very unique conditions. 

The proposed rule will not only deprive Alaska of its traditional 

and sovereign powers. It will also disproportionately impact our 

ability to grow and prosper. Out of 283 total communities in Alaska, 215 of them live within 2 miles of a navigable, in fact, water 

or coastline and the proposed rule expands the area that will be 

subject to Federal permitting authority to the point where the development and sustainability of these communities is going to be 

either subject to a very expensive jurisdictional question or a very 

expensive concession of jurisdiction, and both scenarios raise major 

due process concerns where private property owners, communities, 

and sovereign States need to pay to ask the Federal Government 

if permission is needed or pay the Federal Government for permission regardless of whether permission is actually needed just to 

safely avoid fines, penalties, even endless litigation. And what happens to your property rights when you can’t afford to ask that 

question? 

Alaskans are no strangers to Federal regulations governing essential aspects of our lives and I’m not sure how much more can 

be demanded of us, but I do know that this demand 

mischaracterizes the state of the law and unconstitutionally interferes with our authorities, but what’s worse is it’s not going to enhance the protection of our waters. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Taylor follows:] 
28 
29 
30 
31 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Ms. Taylor. Very eloquent testimony there. Our next witness is Sue Mauger. She is a science director for Cook Inletkeeper. 

STATEMENT OF SUE MAUGER, SCIENCE DIRECTOR, COOK 

INLETKEEPER 

Ms. MAUGER. Chairman Sullivan, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today. I’ve submitted written testimony and ask that it 

be included in the record. 

My name is Sue Mauger and I am the science director for Cook 

Inletkeeper, which is a community-based non-profit organization 

started in 1995 and dedicated to protecting clean water and 

healthy salmon for Alaskans. Please accept this testimony on behalf of Cook Inletkeeper’s staff, board of directors, and more than 

2,000 members and supporters across Southcentral Alaska. 

My comments and support for clarifying protections of Waters of 

the United States under the Clean Water Act are based on my experiences working in Alaska’s fresh water systems for the last 15 

years. Recently my work has involved using thermal infrared technology to identify and map shallow groundwater connections that 

provide key sources of cold water in the summer as well as warm 

water for juvenile salmon in the winter. Exploring these complex 

surface and subsurface connections reinforces to me that in Alaska, 

as in the rest of the United States, protecting tributaries and adjacent wetlands is vital for protection of the integrity of downstream 

waters. 

In my opinion, the impact of the proposed rule will be decidedly 

positive for Alaskans and I’d like to share with you three reasons 

why. First, Alaskans rely on wild salmon and other cold water fish 

for commercial, economic, cultural, and nutritional health. Presently, Alaska’s fresh water habitats are largely intact and support 

some of the most robust wild salmon populations in the world. This 

is, in part, due to the extensively connected systems of small headwater streams and supporting wetlands. State biologists down on 

the Kenai Peninsula are doing exciting research which shows how 

broader landscapes are linked to stream productivity and juvenile 

salmon densities. Through the delivery of alder-derived nitrogen 

and peatland-derived carbon into headwater streams, whole ecosystem responses are generated, which underscores the importance 

of landscape connectivity. 

This makes me think of wetlands functioning like a coffee filter. 

Just as my morning cup of caffeine helps bring me back to life and 

increases my productivity, rich nutrient-laden waters percolating 

out of saturated wetlands helps drive stream productivities. The investment of nutrients from the landscape into the smallest of our 

streams pays off huge dividends in the form of vibrant fisheries. 

The proposed rule will clarify these protections for key habitats 

that help salmon and, in turn, helps Alaskans thrive. 

Second, Alaskans rely on wetlands to reduce flood peaks, which 

put our heavily subsidized transportation infrastructure at risk. 

Fall storms are hard on our roads and bridges. I remember well the 

devastating floods of 2002 when sections of the Sterling Highway 

blew out, leaving the lower Kenai Peninsula cut off for days. We 

had two 100-year flood events within a month of each other. Poorly 
32 

placed inadequately sized culverts in the upper watersheds failed 

which resulted in pulses of debris torrents causing extensive damage downstream. Fall storms will continue; however, a decrease in 

wetland cover can greatly increase peak flows and increase downstream flood damage. 

In fiscal year 2015, the Federal budget covers approximately 90 percent—90 percent—over $1 billion of Alaska’s road costs. It hardly seems like Federal overreach for the EPA to implement a rule 

which will reduce flooding potential by keeping wetlands intact 

when the Federal budget is footing the bills to fix our flood damage. 

Third, Alaskans rely on groundwater sources of drinking water. 

Across our rural landscape, the majority of Alaskans have private 

wells or use surface springs for drinking water. Our wetland-dominated landscape makes this possible by consistently recharging our 

aquifers. Most wells used to supply water to individual homes yield 

water from shallow aquifers, which were recharged within the last 

25 years. Shallow aquifers contain groundwater that is primarily 

from infiltration of local rain and snow and discharge from 

streams, lakes, and wetlands and thus are susceptible to contamination. Keeping potential contaminants away from these water 

sources is by far less expensive than trying to remove contaminants 

once they move into the groundwater. The proposed rule, by clarifying protections for these water bodies, will reinstate Alaska’s confidence that their drinking water is safe for their families. 

One argument that some have made to delay or significantly 

alter the proposed rule is that Alaska’s hydrologic circumstances 

are unique. And I couldn’t agree more with that observation. Alaska’s fresh water situation is unique, uniquely intact and connected. 

Rare circumstances for the Lower 48. But with the current uncertainty of what constitutes the waters of the United States, Alaskans’ clean water and healthy salmon are at risk of a death by a 

thousand cuts. 

Now the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, agencies not 

known for playing nicely together, have, in fact, come up with language that they can work with to fulfill the goal of the Clean Water 

Act. Congress ought to move forward now by approving the protections provided by the proposed rule. Alaskans will be better off for 

it. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mauger follows:] 
33 
34 
35 
36 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Ms. Mauger. Our next witness is 

Bryce Wrigley and Mr. Wrigley is president of the Alaska Farm 

Bureau. I’ve worked with him on many issues. So, President 

Wrigley, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF BRYCE WRIGLEY, PRESIDENT, ALASKA FARM 

BUREAU 

Mr. WRIGLEY. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. I appreciate the opportunity to testify at this hearing. 

The Clean Water Act regulates navigable waters and is defined 

as waters of the United States. It does not regulate all waters. The 

U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the term ‘‘navigable’’ delineates what Congress had in mind when it enacted the Clean 

Water Act. That was its traditional jurisdiction over waters that 

were or had been navigable, in fact, or which could be reasonably 

made. In fact, it was very clear that Congress did not intend for 

the Clean Water Act to cover all waters. When it enacted the Clean 

Water Act, Congress explicitly recognized, preserved, and protected 

the States’ primary authority and responsibility over local land and 

water resources. The proposed Waters of the U.S. rule attempts to 

usurp the States’ traditional and primary authority over land and 

water use. 

The EPA and the Army Corps have made several attempts to assert jurisdiction over waters and water bodies that the Supreme 

Court has found to be outside their jurisdiction. The agencies have 

demonstrated a continual pattern of pushing and bullying the State 

and local governments and intimidating private citizens as they 

have repeatedly sought to assert control over additional waters and 

land. For example, after the Supreme Court found that isolated waters fall outside the Clean Water Act jurisdiction, it clarified that 

in classifying a new area as a wetland, a significant nexus to an 

existing navigable water must exist. The agencies next asserted 

that the decision was limited to isolated waters and that if a water 

body had any connection to a navigable water, it was no longer an 

isolated water body and could therefore be regulated as a navigable 

water under the Clean Water Act. The agencies’ rationale was that, 

in the end, all waters are connected, which essentially include all 

wet areas, including ditches, drains, desert washes, and ephemeral 

streams that flow infrequently and may be miles from traditional 

navigable waters. 

The Supreme Court again rejected the Corps’ broad interpretation and the court found that the plain language of the Clean 

Water Act does not authorize this expansion of Federal jurisdiction 

and that in applying the definition so broadly to seasonally wet features, the Corps had stretched the term ‘‘waters of the United 

States’’ beyond parody. Further, the court clarified that the act confers jurisdiction only over relatively permanent bodies of water. 

The implementation of the rule as it now stands will expose 

farmers and ranchers to legal action if they engage in normal farming activities. If a low spot in a field is, indeed, determined to be 

a wetland under the expanded definition because it sometimes 

holds or sheds water, it may require dredge or fill permits to plant 

or harvest our fields. It may also require a discharge permit for applying fertilizer or pesticides to crops. And just because an oper-
37 

ation is organic doesn’t mean that it would get a pass. Organic operations would also need dredge and fill permits for planting and 

harvesting and would also need discharge permits to apply manure 

or compost to their fields. 

I decided on the way in today that most of those listening have 

no idea of what I’m even talking about. Your experience with agriculture is through the food you eat, so you cannot understand the 

impact of this rule on America’s farmers. So, in an effort to help 

you understand, I’ve decided that I’m going to start a project to redefine food. 

According to the Supreme Court, a significant nexus must occur 

or be present. It is required to be able to—and that is required to 

be able to reclassify a substance as food. Applying EPA’s logic to 

this model, I’ve determined, and I’m sure you’ll agree, that what 

animals eat and then poop out meets the significant nexus requirement for human food. They eat the same things we do. Then, to 

make sure that these resources are not wasted, I’m going to impose 

a $37,000 fine per day on anyone who does not eat this new food. 

So your menu options at the restaurant will change. You can now 

choose chicken poop tenders, poop chops, or cow pie steak. Now, 

you laugh because you realize that I have no authority to implement these food changes. Imagine if I was a powerful Federal agency with the full power and backing of the U.S. Government behind 

it and decided to implement these changes. What would your reaction be? 

Congress has allowed the creation of this vast bureaucracy 

which, in all practicality, is a fourth branch of the government. 

This fourth branch is not beholding to nor can it be removed by we, 

the people. Our only recourse is to rely on Congress to impose strict 

limits on their authority and their rulemaking. Both Congress and 

the Supreme Court have told EPA that this rule oversteps the intent of Congress. 

I urge you in the strongest possible terms to confine EPA’s authority to those navigable waters, as was clearly intended by Congress when the Clean Water Act was passed. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wrigley follows:] 
38 
39 
40 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, President Wrigley, and thank you 

for all the work you do on behalf of Alaska’s farmers. It’s a group 

of our citizens that do incredible work for all of us, and I appreciate 

your testimony. 

Our next witness is John MacKinnon, executive director of the 

Associated General Contractors of Alaska. Mr. MacKinnon, the 

floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN MacKINNON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF ALASKA 

Mr. MACKINNON. Thank you, Chairman Sullivan. For the record, 

my name is John MacKinnon. I’m the executive director of the Associated General Contractors. The AGC is a construction trade association representing approximately 650 contractors, suppliers, 

manufacturers, and businesses in Alaska. Within our membership 

is the majority of Alaska’s construction industry. AGC contractors 

are involved in the construction of Alaska’s public and private 

buildings, highways, bridges, docks, and harbors, and the preparation of access roads and development pads necessary for the extraction of our natural resources. 

The industry obtains general and individual permits to perform 

construction activities in or near waters of the United States and 

permits for stormwater discharges, both covered under the Clean 

Water Act. As such, this proposed guidance will pervade all stages 

of construction and will have a substantial impact on the construction industry. 

Prior to joining AGC 8 years ago, I was—and becoming an advocate for the construction industry, I was a deputy commissioner of 

the Alaska Department of Transportation and an advocate for 

transportation projects in Alaska. During that time, you know, 

DOT oversees 249 airports throughout the State, 11 ferries serving 

35 communities, 5,600 miles of highways, and 720 buildings 

throughout Alaska. And one of my responsibilities at DOT was 

overseeing the maintenance and construction programs for all of 

those facilities. Major projects in this State often require—trigger 

NEPA and require an environmental impact statement, and the 

challenge we had was that the average EIS for a federally funded 

transportation project takes about 5 years from beginning to reaching a record of decision. From that point of the record of decision, 

the project sponsor then begins to get the dozens and dozens of permits required in order to go to construction. The average time for 

a major highway project that requires an EIS from beginning the 

EIS to completion of the project—this is the average time—is 13 

years. It’s no wonder transportation projects take so long to deliver 

when you consider all of the permits and permissions required. 

I have attached to my written testimony a graph like this which 

shows the Federal environmental requirements affecting transportation. That’s about 1965 where it starts on that trajectory upward. 

Senator SULLIVAN. We want to make sure that will be submitted 

for the record. 

Mr. MACKINNON. Yes, thank you. You know, I might add that 

in—about 40 years ago, 1970 or so, approximately 90 cents out of 

every dollar for a construction project went out as a payment to 

contractors. That was dirt in the ground, pavement and that. 
41 

Today it’s under 70 cents on every dollar of a construction project 

goes out as a payment to contractor. The balance in there, that 

twenty-some cents, is going into process and permits and much of 

it adds very little value to the project. 

In Alaska, a lack of adequate transportation is one of the biggest 

impediments to our economy. Forty years ago, the biggest obstacle 

we had to doing something was scraping the money together. 

Today, the biggest obstacle is getting permission, and this will only 

exacerbate that. 

Development of wetlands falls under the guideline hierarchy of 

avoid, minimize, and mitigate. And when designing a project, the 

first objective is to avoid any impact to wetlands. People don’t set 

out to impact wetlands. It just happens because roads and airport 

construction, projects in general, prefer flat ground and in Alaska 

that’s where you find wetlands. When avoidance isn’t possible, you 

work to minimize the impact on wetlands and any wetlands impacted are subject to a fee-in-lieu mitigation payment. Depending 

on the class of the wetlands disturbed, mitigation can be up to 

$55,000 per acre. This is up from $10,000 an acre relatively few 

years ago. That makes Alaska’s 170 million acres of wetlands 

worth over $9 trillion. 

The simple conclusion to draw is that this proposed guidance is 

increased jurisdiction, it is increased permitting, it is increased 

mitigation, and it is increased cost. 

The Clean Water Act has worked as intended in the 40-some 

years since it became law. We’ve corrected most of our environmental problems and degradation. We probably have the cleanest 

country on Earth. We’ve overcompensated in so many areas as the 

chart shows, and now the bureaucracy is again taking the law, and 

through regulations, stretching it beyond its original intent. 

In conclusion, in Alaska’s case, we’re held to the same standard 

as the rest of the Country and we’re not the same condition. The 

present jurisdiction exceeds what’s necessary to protect the environment and maintain interstate commerce. The proposed changes 

will have a significant negative effect on the construction industry 

and the economy and the guidance under WOTUS will have a further material impact on permitting and enforcement nationwide. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. MacKinnon follows:] 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. MacKinnon, for that very 

powerful testimony. 

Our next witness is Austin Williams. He is the Alaska Director 

of Law and Policy for Trout Unlimited. Mr. Williams, the floor is 

yours. 

STATEMENT OF AUSTIN WILLIAMS, ALASKA DIRECTOR OF 

LAW AND POLICY, TROUT UNLIMITED 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. Chairman Sullivan, my name is Austin Williams. I’m the Alaska Director of Law and Policy for Trout 

Unlimited, which I will abbreviate as TU. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and please also include 

the written testimony that I have provided as part of the record. 

TU is the Nation’s largest sportsmen organization dedicated to 

cold water conservation, with more than 1,000 members in Alaska. 

They are passionate anglers, lodge owners, fishing and hunting 

guides, commercial fishermen, among various other occupations. In 

addition to our members in more remote parts of the State, we 

have active chapters in Fairbanks, Anchorage, and the Mat-Su, on 

the Kenai Peninsula, and in Southeast. TU supports the Clean 

Water Act rule because it will ensure protection of critical water 

resources, the Nation’s millions of miles of headwater streams, and 

Alaska’s most important and productive waterways. We cannot ensure clean water in our most valuable rivers and streams without 

also protecting the smaller waters that feed in to them, yet recent 

administrative guidance following two Supreme Court cases, 

SWANCC in 2001 and Rapanos in 2006, has thrown decades of 

precedence, logic, and stability on its head. 

After repeated requests from TU, along with many other sportsmen organizations, businesses, and industry groups, the Corps and 

the EPA have finally taken the strong step to propose a fix that 

will help provide clarity and consistency within the act while ensuring clean water protections for our fish and wildlife, including 

Alaska’s iconic salmon runs. 

At the heart of the agencies’ proposal is what every sportsman 

knows: that small streams influence the health of large rivers and 

that clean water for small streams help grow big fish. Like many 

Alaskans, I first came to our great State to experience its legendary fish and wildlife and, like many more Alaskans, these qualities are why I continue to call Alaska home, and why my wife and 

I choose to raise our family here. My son is only 3 and my daughter 

is not yet 2 months old, but my hope is that they can grow up and 

enjoy the same great fishing and hunting opportunities available to 

you and me, which all depend on clean water. 

Fishing isn’t just part of the Alaska way of life, it’s also big business. Nearly $650 million a year is spent on sport fishing in Alaska. When you factor in multiplier effects, sport fishing accounts for 

more than a billion dollars in economic impact to Alaska communities. Add in hunting and other wildlife-related recreation, then 

the total climbs to $3.4 billion each year. Alaskans also commercially harvested 157 million salmon last year worth more than half 

a billion dollars at the dock and the number is projected to increase 

this year to more than $220 million—or 220 million salmon. I’m 

sorry. And all of this is possible because of clean water. 
47 

Those that claim the sky is falling with regard to the cost of complying with the proposed rule or that claim that development will 

come to a screeching halt fail to recognize that even greater value, 

clean water and the fish and wildlife it supports, provides to Alaskans. And, besides, before SWANCC, when the jurisdictional reach 

of the Clean Water Act was even greater than what is proposed 

under the current rule, Alaska’s population nearly doubled from 

324,000 to 633,000 people, and its gross domestic product nearly 

doubled from $15 billion to $29 billion per year. Oil, gas, and coal 

production all increased several times over during the same period. 

Economic development and clean water protections can co-exist 

under this proposed rule. 

In a recent statewide poll, 96 percent of Alaskans said salmon 

are essential to the Alaskan way of life. Eighty-nine percent said 

that even in tough economic times, funding for salmon conservation 

should be maintained. Eighty percent said that protecting the forests, tundra, and wetlands around streams is as important as protecting the streams themselves. Seventy-nine percent of Alaskans 

were concerned about pollution in rivers, lakes, and streams, which 

is on par with issues like reducing the Federal budget deficit and 

unemployment. 

TU is a science-driven organization and in this case the science 

is clear: headwater streams provide essential habitat for important 

fish and wildlife, contribute to the water quality of larger 

downriver streams. Better habitat means better fishing and better 

fishing is good for Alaska. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:] 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Williams. I appreciate the 

testimony. 

Our next witness is Deantha Crockett. She is the executive director of the Alaska Miners Association. And, Ms. Crockett, appreciate 

your testimony. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF DEANTHA CROCKETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ALASKA MINERS ASSOCIATION 

Ms. CROCKETT. Thank you very much. For the record, my name 

is Deantha Crockett and I’m the executive director of the Alaska 

Miners Association. AMA is a trade association. It represents all 

aspects of Alaska’s mining industry. 

As you mentioned, this rule is massive and, I’ll add, inappropriate of an expansion. The reality here has been discussed, so I’ll 

move on. 

Aside from the legality issues, AMA has spent considerable 

amount of time in collaboration with our partners in other States 

to examine the impacts of this proposed rule. We found that no 

matter what geographic location with the constituency reviewing 

the proposal, all had significant issue with the proposed rule. Yes, 

what effects water permitting and mining operations in Nevada is 

significantly different than operations here in Alaska, but therein 

lies the complexity of this proposal. The Clean Water Act is explicit 

in governing how water is managed across the Nation and, since 

its passage, operations have understood the requirements of the 

act. This proposal dramatically shifts that understanding by redefining what a water actually is. Nevada, clearly a dry, arid region, 

is seeing the possibility of regulation of manmade water bodies at 

mining operations. Alaska, with water being one of our most plentiful resources, is seeing the possibility of having to regulate 

stormwater and diversion ditches. 

You’ve asked me here today to discuss impacts of this proposed 

rule on Alaska’s miners. First, I’d like to be clear and address our 

previous 2008 comments that were taken out of context at your 

hearing on Monday. The Trustees for Alaska indicated that we 

asked for clarity at that time, and they are correct, but this is not 

it. The lack of clarity throughout this document is actually our 

major concern. Definitions of key terms and concepts like waters, 

flood plain, wetlands, subsurface connection, et cetera, are completely ambiguous. There is no room for confusion when it comes 

to permitting and regulating mining projects in Alaska. We depend 

on, and we believe the public does, too, a rigorous science-based 

permitting system. Without explicit definition of all technical and 

enforceable terms we are left with an unpredictable and confusing 

proposed rule. We can only assume that we will also be left with 

undefined terms that will be subject to interpretation by the agencies. 

To be perfectly frank, we fear this provides an avenue for our 

Federal agencies to take a large leap into overreach and place unreasonable regulations on mining projects simply because they can. 

Both agencies have hosted public forums in which stakeholders 

have posed questions about the rules and in the forums that I’ve 

participated in, the agencies could not provide definitions or responded that the intent of the proposed rule isn’t actually what 
54 

they meant in the language, et cetera, and that we should put in 

our comments what our concerns are and allow them to address it 

at that time. 

One of the instances I’m thinking of here is in July, the National 

Mining Association hosted a meeting with Greg Peck, he’s the office—head of the Office of Water in—with EPA, excuse me, that 

proposes this rule and we spent a lot of time talking to him and 

asking him for clarification on these things, in which he responded, 

no, that’s not what we meant and be sure to put that in your comments so we can address it. And we specifically asked, those of us 

participating from Alaska, for a lot more information because he 

didn’t understand. At that time, AMA in conjunction with RDC 

who represents all of Alaska’s resource industries, as well as all of 

Alaska’s Native corporations, sent him a letter inviting him to 

Alaska and offered to hold some sort of public meeting with a lot 

of stakeholders to bring him up to speed on how this would affect 

Alaska. We didn’t hear back. And in August, we asked Senator 

Murkowski and then Senator Begich and Congressman Young and 

they did remind Gregory Peck of that invitation, still never heard 

back and did not get any engagement from him. 

So I bring that up because you asked the previous testifiers if it 

would have helped, and I think it would have helped EPA to consult with Alaskans and come see for themselves what they’re proposing to do. 

You, in talking with Senator Bishop and Mayor Brower, touched 

on this, but EPA didn’t consult with the State on this proposed 

rule, nor did they consider a consult with the Alaska Native landowners. The Native landowners were granted 44 million acres of 

land that Congress intended to be a partial settlement of outstanding Native claims. The new definitions will undoubtedly have 

the direct result of significantly undermining the intent of Congress for these acres to be available for responsible resource development, including minerals, now owned in fee title by the corporations established by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. 

Furthermore, the rule encroaches on traditional power of the 

States to regulate land and water within our borders. It’s just as 

vital to ensure that States’ rights are not being violated. It’s statutorily mandated and affirmed by our legal system that regulation 

of Interior waters is a quintessential State function. 

Categorizing many new features as waters of the U.S. and determining that all adjacent features also qualify will consequently 

subject nearly every parcel of land to jurisdiction under the act. In 

Alaska, 175 million acres are classified as wetlands, thus 45 percent of our land base. We’re the only State in the union with extensive permafrost and our coastline and tidally influenced waters exceed that of the rest of the Nation combined. Any regulation or rule 

addressing wetland and coastal environments will have a potentially greater effect in Alaska than anywhere else in the Nation, 

particularly if ill-conceived. The combination of these Alaska-specific issues and those that all stakeholders must manage means 

Alaska’s miners have an enormous burden at stake. 

AMA has recommended that the agencies table this proposed 

rule and engage in meaningful dialog with the regulated community and with the States about more appropriate and clear changes 
55 

to existing regulations. Only then should agencies replace the proposed rule with one that reflects those consultations and is supported by science and case law. Doing so will ensure responsible, 

legally defensible rulemaking that captures the intent of Congress 

and the Supreme Court and does not place unnecessary burdens on 

Americans. 

Thank you, Senator Sullivan. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Crockett follows:] 
56 
57 
58 
59 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Ms. Crockett. 

Our final witness today before we have some Q and A is Shannon Carroll. He is an attorney and a commercial fisherman. Mr. 

Carroll. 

STATEMENT OF SHANNON CARROLL, ATTORNEY AND 

COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN 

Mr. CARROLL. Thank you. My name is Shannon Carroll. I’m a 

commercial fisherman and a solo practitioner attorney. I thank the 

committee for the opportunity to testify today. 

My comments and support for the proposed regulations are based 

on my experience working in the commercial fishing industries in 

Alaska, Washington, and Maine. And as someone who has fished 

elsewhere in the Country, I am proud to live and work in a State 

that takes the health of its fisheries so seriously. I also want to 

thank you, Senator Sullivan, for supporting our industry during 

your time in office thus far. 

In 1977, Congress re-examined the necessity of wetland protections within Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Then, as now, 

commercial fisherman vocalized their support for the provision, 

coining the phrase ‘‘no wetlands, no seafood.’’ I mention this phrase 

now because in the case of Alaska, it cannot be more apropos. With 

over 43 percent of our State covered in wetlands, it is not surprising that 76 percent of our State’s seafood harvest comes from 

wetland-dependent fisheries each year. In addition to the State’s 

iconic salmon fisheries, wetlands are also critical to other keystone 

fisheries such as halibut, pollack, herring, and crab. 

I support the proposed rule because it clarifies protections to waters upon which these fisheries rely, all while reserving existing exemptions for farmers, ranchers, and foresters. 

In addition to promoting the health of our fisheries, the proposed 

rule further protects the brand of Alaskan seafood. As the Alaska 

Seafood Marketing Institute noted, the perception of Alaskan stewardship is an immeasurable but important component of both the 

seafood and visitor industries. Millions of people eat Alaskan seafood for the same reason that over 1 million visitors travel to the 

State each year, because they value Alaska’s pristine environment. 

By categorically including wetlands, the proposed rule ensures that 

Alaska’s seafood sterling reputation will continue into the future. 

My support of healthy fisheries is not entirely out of self-interest. 

Fishing means business and it means jobs in Alaska. As Alaska’s 

third largest industry, recent figures place the combined value of 

Alaska seafood exports and domestic sales at $6.4 billion and when 

secondary economic output is included, the Alaska fishing industry 

accounts for $15.7 billion in economic production. That’s over 

94,000 jobs that are directly tied to the commercial fishing industry 

and an estimated $6.4 billion in labor wages. And, importantly, 

most of these jobs stay in Alaska, with nearly one in eight Alaskan 

workers earning at least a portion of their income directly from the 

fishing industry. 

Fishing is also the backbone of Alaska’s coastal communities employing 50 percent of private sector workers in coastal towns. And 

perhaps equally important in places like Kodiak, Petersburg, 

Dillingham, Cordova, commercial fishing is not just the engine that 
60 

drives the local economy, it’s a means of opportunity and a means 

of mobility. These are good jobs that can provide high school-age 

kids with the opportunity to pay for college, a down payment on 

a boat or a permit. These are jobs that bestow self-worth amongst 

those in the industry and further a tradition that one is proud to 

pass down to the next generation. Most importantly, however, 

these are jobs that are built on the back of a sustainable resource, 

meaning that these jobs can, with proper management and self-restraint, support local communities for generations to come. 

And there will, no doubt, be costs associated with the proposed 

rule, but it seems equitable that these costs at least be initially 

borne by those seeking to benefit from the proposed development. 

And just as before SWANCC and Rapanos, development and resource extraction will continue to occur and the economy will continue to grow. I will also add that having commercial fished in 

Washington and Maine, two States that previously held some of 

the world’s largest salmon runs, that there are much greater costs 

associated with the restoration of a crippled fishery than there are 

with development fees and mitigation banks. To give you an example, Washington State has invested more than $1 billion in public 

funds to its hatchery program and continues to spend $60 million 

a year with little effect on its dwindling salmon fishery. 

So, in closing, I urge Senator Sullivan and the members of this 

committee to consider the wide-reaching and economic and cultural 

benefits that this proposed rule will have for the State. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carroll follows:] 
61 
62 
63 
64 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Carroll, and thank you for reminding us of the importance of the fishery—fishing communities 

and industry to our State. You’re spot-on with regard to those comments. 

We have about 20, 25 minutes until the hearing is supposed to 

adjourn and what I thought we would do is conduct some questions, follow up questions. And the way I like to do this is start 

with a question maybe of a certain witness, but I want to encourage everybody who wants to weigh in on any question to just be 

recognized. And certainly all of you can feel free to weigh in on any 

of the questions that are posed, even if they’re initially posed for 

certain members of the panel. 

I guess I’ll start. And, Ms. Taylor, you, as I mentioned were very 

eloquent in terms of some of the things that you laid out with regard to the views that some of our Lower 48 citizens have with regard to Alaska. But, importantly, and there’s a lot of lawyers on 

the panel, so feel free to weigh in, it’s important to remind people 

what the Clean Water Act tried to do with regard to States’ abilities to keep their waters clean. 

So Section 101(b) of the Clean Water Act clearly states, ‘‘It is the 

policy of Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary 

responsibilities and rights of the States to prevent, reduce, and 

eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use in restoration, 

preservation, and enhancement of land and water resources, and to 

consult with the EPA administrator in the exercise of his authority 

under this chapter.’’ His or her authority. 

Do you think that the EPA is abiding by this directive of Congress under the Clean Water Act as making sure that the policy 

of the Congress is to protect, preserve, and recognize the primary 

responsibility of States and other entities to protect their waters? 

I’ll start with you, Ms. Taylor, and then anyone else who wants to 

jump in on that issue. This is the law. This is the law. 

Ms. TAYLOR. No, absolutely not. Not legally or even kind of holistically. If you look at this rule, it presumes that where Federal jurisdiction ends, complete and utter lawlessness exists thereafter, 

which is incredibly disrespectful to the States’ management obligations and traditional and primary powers, and authorities to manage and protect its waters. But even on a legal basis, if you look 

at other parts of the Clean Water Act, like the—it gives the States 

regulatory responsibilities, significant regulatory responsibilities, 

and it gives opportunities to assume primacy over certain permitting aspects for discharge, for dredge and fill. But the primacy aspect exists, you know, where it’s not waters of the U.S. I’m generalizing, but where the Federal Government has jurisdiction, it kind 

of keeps it, and then the States kind of get a little primacy, you 

know, left—it’s very complicated. Sorry. But the whole aspect of 

primacy would mean nothing if there’s nothing left. 

So the Clean Water Act has created the system where States can 

assume primacy, but we would be paying millions of dollars to 

manage like a million acres. You know, so it wouldn’t—it would 

read all of those provisions completely out of the law to assume 

that this regulation can go forward as written. 
65 

Senator SULLIVAN. Any other comments on that initial primacy 

directive from Congress to the EPA with regard to the States’ primacy—primary responsibilities on these issues? Sir. 

Mr. WRIGLEY. Yes. All the States have incentives to encourage 

and improve their water resources and water—and there are a lot 

of water success stories that are, in fact, featured on EPA’s 

website. Those success stories came about without the heavy hand 

of EPA regulating and permitting. The success stories were due to 

voluntary conservation efforts under the existing definitions of the 

Clean Water Act. The presumption here is that without—and I 

agree with Sara. The presumption is that without this rule going 

forward, we are—in fact, do not have any Clean Water Act in place. 

And in reality, what we have is a Clean Water Act that is functioning and still allows the States to assert primacy, to control and 

to manage those waters within their jurisdiction. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Let me ask another question with regard to 

the hearing today, the first panel, this panel, and the hearing we 

held 2 days ago in Anchorage. Two themes come out, I believe, and 

I believe that even though there’s differing opinions, obviously from 

the witnesses here on their support or lack thereof of this rule, that 

there was agreement in Anchorage on two key issues. One is that 

Alaska, under this rule, given our size, given the huge amount of 

wetlands, given the huge amount of clean water that we have is 

uniquely impacted by this rule. 

Is there general agreement among the witnesses on that issue? 

Say, we had a witness that mentioned some category, I think even 

a State park in our State, the Wood-Tikchik, which is larger than 

certainly Rhode Island and some other States. It’s important for 

my fellow Senators in the Lower 48 to recognize this. But is there 

a general agreement among the witnesses here that we are uniquely impacted one way or the other with regard to this rule for all 

the reasons that have been discussed by the witnesses today? I see 

everybody’s head nodding. Sue, is your head nodding? 

Ms. MAUGER. I guess it’s just a choice of words. We’re impacted, 

but we’re also protected. 

Senator SULLIVAN. OK. And then I do want to get into the issue 

of consultation. This process, I believe, has been flawed, has been 

very rushed. I have raised this with the EPA administrator. The 

issue of getting the Connectivity Report that the rule is based upon 

out after the rule is promulgated is beyond bizarre in terms of a 

process that’s supposed to work well. 

Were any of your organizations or your members—do you think 

you had the proper consultation with the EPA? And, you know, Ms. 

Crockett, you mentioned how hard you worked to try to get an EPA 

administrator up here to try and understand Alaska. Do you think 

that the consultation that is required by the EPA and the whole 

host of Federal statutes and regulations was undertaken in a way 

that was sufficient, particularly to allow Alaskans to give their 

voice to what is going to be possibly a rule that can have enormous 

impact on our State? 

Ms. CROCKETT. Absolutely not. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Yes, Mr. Williams. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Senator, if I may, TU has participated throughout 

the public processes through development of this proposed rule, 
66 

and we had no special treatment beyond what any other member 

of the public had. But we found the EPA’s procedures to be typical 

with what would be expected of a rulemaking process and felt that 

the opportunity to participate was adequate for our purposes and 

believe that the rule should go forward as currently proposed. 

Senator SULLIVAN. OK. Let me turn to the impact on small entities. I read the rule. I read the SBA’s—Obama administration’s 

SBA’s concerns. President Wrigley, Ms. Crockett, Mr. McKinnon, a 

lot of your members represent not huge organizations, but placer 

miners, small farmers, small contractors. Could you describe what 

you think is the impact on particularly small businesses, small 

farmers that I think is so often overlooked as really the backbone 

of our economy here in Alaska and throughout the Country. 

Ms. CROCKETT. I’ll go first. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. As you 

mentioned, I’m the representative on the panel here that represents placer miners and I can tell you that my very small placer 

mining operations that I represent, they’re very scared. I do want 

to point out, at the end of 2014, AMA published a research survey 

we did with the McDowell Group here in Alaska to figure out what 

the economic impact of placer mining in the State of Alaska is. And 

we found out, and what we term it is, is that it’s our seventh large 

mine in Alaska, meaning with all of the placer mines in Alaska, 

the job numbers, the economic procurement numbers, the revenues 

to local, State, and Federal Governments, is as much as one large 

operating mine, yet these are really small projects and very small 

parcels of acreage with real small amounts of employees. 

I bring this up because a proposal like the waters of the U.S. proposal, these guys have been operating on their land, many of them, 

for three or four decades and they understand it better than nobody else, and they understand their permits and they understand 

specifically what every piece of land on their property—what permits go about it and how to work it and how to manage it in responsibility to the environment. So when a change like this comes 

along and they have a water body that for—whether it’s the intent 

of the EPA or not the intent of the EPA, because this rule is so 

confusing, may become jurisdictional. Now they’re entering into the 

realm of what Mr. MacKinnon described to you as wetlands mitigation. So now they have a body of water that they could be required 

to pay, like Mr. MacKinnon said, it used to be $11,000 an acre, now 

it could be up to $55,000 an acre for a very small placer mining 

operation in which very often is one or two, almost always no more 

than ten employees. Fifty-five thousand dollars an acre for a small 

business like that will absolutely put them out of business. 

I don’t think it’s fair to say that we are claiming the sky is falling. The sky will fall for an operation like that if they have to start 

paying amounts on that, on a body of water on their property that 

they’ve been managing and treating and doing the right way for 

several decades. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you. Mr. MacKinnon. 

Mr. MACKINNON. Senator Sullivan, I’ll touch a little bit more on 

the mitigation aspect of it. You know, it goes by a number of different terms. Formally, it is mitigation and the fees can be quite 

onerous, relative to the size of the project. Mitigation dollars are 

intended to be spent to restore or enhanced damaged or impacted 
67 

wetlands within the same region, preferably watershed of where 

the proposed wetlands would be impacted. And it’s very difficult to 

do in Alaska because we have such vast undeveloped acreage. 

When you want to develop in one particular area, there may be 

nothing nearby to mitigate. We’ve got situations right now that I’ve 

been told about where projects that are desired to go forward, going 

through the permitting process cannot find mitigation projects in 

order to offset. So we’ve got stalled projects, according to the rule. 

This guidance—you know, we’ve got a difference of opinion. Some 

say it isn’t an expansion and some say it is. I think, unfortunately, 

time will only tell as the expansion of the Clean Water Act has 

happened. You know, we’re adding more acreage in there to potentially be mitigated and we’re potentially shutting down a tremendous amount of development, of resource extraction, of jobs, of future. And I know Austin, to the left of me, wants his son to grow 

up here and enjoy the fish and game and I think everyone does 

want their children to grow up and have a good employment, fish 

and game, and the great outdoors, and no one wants to ruin that, 

but unless we have an economy to build upon, that’s not going to 

happen. 

Senator SULLIVAN. And who makes the—you talked about the increase in the mitigation per acreage from—what did you say, 

$10,000 to about—— 

Mr. MACKINNON. Ten thousand—again, it depends on the value 

of the wetlands. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Right. 

Mr. MACKINNON. There are high-value wetlands, lower-value 

wetlands, but there is a sum attached to each one of those. That 

comes from the Corps of Engineers through consultation. 

Senator SULLIVAN. And they just do that—I mean, I’ve seen the 

numbers grow. They’re just making—they just have the discretion 

to say, heh, here it’s 10,000, over here it’s going to be 100,000. 

Good luck. I mean, is that what happens? 

Mr. MACKINNON. You know, they’re the permitting agency. You 

don’t have much opportunity or leg to stand on and argue against 

them. If they say the mitigation fee is $55,000 an acre, it’s either 

pay up if you want to construct or go away. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Just from my perspective, I think that’s something that needs a lot more congressional oversight because in my 

experience in Alaska, it seems completely random and prohibitive 

in terms of some of the value that they’ve put on some of these 

projects that essentially make them uneconomic. 

Mr. Wrigley, do you want to comment at all with regard to the 

cost to the small farmer? I know that the National Farm Bureau, 

in addition to the Alaska Farm Bureau, is very concerned about 

this rule. 

Mr. WRIGLEY. Yes, thank you. Yes, I think of my operation. I’ve 

got a—and for the other members of your committee that probably 

have never been outside a city, I have a field that’s 2 miles long, 

about a quarter-mile wide, so basically the size of the Washington 

Mall. So if you can picture that. Now, this field is not flat. It’s got 

low undulating terrain that bisects that field on a diagonal. So 

every—you’ve got high spots and then you’ve got low spots, and 

then high spots and low spots. 
68 

During the wintertime, it obviously gets cold here, the ground 

freezes, and then when summertime comes or springtime comes, 

then the snow melts and it runs to the low spots. So the top, the 

high ground is free of snow and thaws out while the bottom ground 

is covered with snow and then ice and water and until that frost 

goes out of the ground, that area is wet. Now, because the ground 

is not flat, then this water that has melted and accumulated in 

these low spots, drifts toward the downstream side. 

Two weeks later it’s completely dry. I can farm it up and down, 

up and down, up and down. According to this rule, those low spots, 

and there’s half a dozen of them in this field, I could not farm those 

low spots even though they’re dry, I could not farm through those 

low spots unless I had a dredge and fill permit because, while we 

talk about the exemptions to agriculture that are within the Clean 

Water Act, in order to apply those exemptions, you have to have 

been farming that area continuously since 1977. Now, that area 

was cleared for agriculture in 1979 and 1980 and 1981, and so 

none of that area is even eligible for it. And the new ground that 

gets broken would also require a dredge and fill permit. 

So what is the cost of those permits? If you make a mistake and don’t get the right permit, then it’s $37,500 a day. A day. And so 

how can a small farmer or small business afford those kinds of 

things? There’s no way. And so what you’re going to have is large, 

large corporations who can afford to hire somebody and chase these 

permits and make sure that the reporting is done, because getting 

the permit is only part of the process; you still have to report on 

it. And so the permitting and chasing these permits and reporting 

on that can be done by somebody who can do this for a large corporation because he can afford to do that. And that’s going to result 

in—98 percent of our farmers in America are still family farms. 

That’s going to completely change the dynamics of those numbers. 

So I think that it’s very clear that—again, I—and I state again, 

this rule has nothing to do with the Clean Water Act. The Clean 

Water Act is in place. We’re not debating whether to drop it or 

throw it out or anything like that. We’re just talking about Federal 

overreach because we’re not just talking about the waters that EPA 

controls, we’re talking about the land underneath those waters. 

And so my field becomes land underneath those waters. Even 

though there’s no water on it, that comes under the jurisdiction of 

the EPA now, or Army Corps. 

Senator SULLIVAN. And we know that if that were the case, it 

would take some time just to be able to apply for and get the permits. 

Mr. WRIGLEY. Yes, and there is no schedule as far as how long 

they can take to get those permits. You apply for a permit. What 

if you had—suddenly had a grasshopper infestation and now you 

need to apply a pesticide to kill the grasshoppers before they destroy your crop? How long does that take to get that permit? Because over a wetland you would not only need dredge and fill permits to do normal farming activities, put a fence in, pull weeds, all 

of this stuff is required for dredge and fill permits, but now you 

need a discharge permit to be able to kill the grasshoppers. And 

how long is that going to take? Your crop is gone before you can 

get that permit process through. 
69 

Senator SULLIVAN. Let me follow up on a—oh, go ahead, Mr. Carroll. 

Mr. CARROLL. I just want to add since we’re talking about small 

businesses that I think it’s important for the record to note that 

every fishing vessel is quite literally a small business. 

Senator SULLIVAN. I couldn’t agree more. 

Mr. CARROLL. They’re all LLCs. And, you know, mitigation 

serves a purpose and while I can’t speak to the difficulty of obtaining mitigation land in this State, I will say that fishermen will suffer if wetlands are not covered under this protection, and they will 

go out of business. I’ve seen it other States where I’ve lived. Those 

coastal communities shut down and people from out of State move 

in and those coastal communities change a lot in character. 

So these are small businesses that are adversely affected by, you 

know, an effort to repeal this proposed rule. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Well, trust me, there is an EPA reg right now 

that I’m trying to get excepted permanently. You’re probably quite 

aware of it—we’re making some good progress—that is directly impacting small businesses in the form of our fishermen, which is the 

discharge permit required for decks. Literally, hosing off the fish 

guts off your vessel after you’re fishing. 

Mr. CARROLL. Right. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Lunacy, in my view, that’s killing our small 

fishermen. 

Mr. CARROLL. Yes, and I—— 

Senator SULLIVAN. And, by the way, we’re making very good 

progress on getting rid of that one hopefully forever. So I certainly—you make a very good point. Our fishermen and women are 

classic—the definition of small businesses. They take risks, they 

create a great product, which is Alaska seafood, and they often 

pass on their businesses to their kids and grandkids. In my experience, they’re impacted by EPA regulations in a negative way almost more than anybody, even our miners. So I certainly recognize 

that. It’s a good point. 

Let me just ask an issue that’s related that I—it’s actually one 

of the critical issues. We have a lot of lawyers on the panel. There’s 

a big debate here. Is this an expansion of the EPA’s jurisdiction 

under the Clean Water Act or not? If it is, if it’s a major expansion, 

it is clear, it is clear, it’s abundantly clear that the power to dramatically expand the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act does not 

reside with the EPA. It resides with the Congress of the United 

States. 

I was, as Alaska’s attorney general, part of a lawsuit that went 

to the Supreme Court last year. It was a similar case in many 

ways. It was the EPA’s rulemaking under the Clean Air Act, and 

they had promulgated a rule that would have negatively impacted 

the State of Alaska dramatically under the Clean Air Act and the 

Supreme Court reprimanded the EPA and essentially said, if you 

don’t have—if you’re expanding the jurisdiction of the Clean Air 

Act, you have to go to Congress to get permission to do that. You 

can’t do that through a rulemaking. And they had some very strong 

language with regard to the EPA’s overreach, saying it’s a violation 

of the separation of powers. 
70 

So let me get to that issue. It’s the critical issue. Right now the 

EPA is saying, no, no, no, this is not an expansion; this is a limitation, this is a clarification. And yet I think some of the testimony 

here believes that this is a massive expansion of the jurisdiction of 

the Clean Water Act. 

Mr. Wrigley, your testimony just now in terms of what it would 

do to a family farm in Alaska certainly is powerful evidence that 

this is an expansion. Would anyone like to comment one way or the 

other? If it is an expansion, they have to go to Congress to get that 

permission, period. Which is why I think the administrator of the 

EPA is kind of playing a little bit footloose and fancy free with her 

depiction of what this rule would do by saying, no, it’s a clarification, it’s a limitation on us. I personally don’t believe that, but I’d 

like any of the witnesses to opine either with regard to whether 

they see this as an expansion or—that’s the critical issue that we’re 

looking at. Mr. Williams. Oh, I’m sorry, Ms. Taylor, go ahead. 

Ms. TAYLOR. I’m going to say that it’s such an expansion if you 

look at what would be jurisdictional under the rule that I don’t 

even think Congress could authorize the extent of that jurisdiction 

if they asked. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Meaning it would violate the Constitution? 

Ms. TAYLOR. That’s correct. Yes. 

Senator SULLIVAN. So you think it’s not only within the realm of 

the EPA’s because they’re a—remember, they’re a Federal agency 

that has to get its authority from Congress. You think it would be 

beyond the power of Congress even to expand it this far? What 

would—that would violate—— 

Ms. TAYLOR. That would violate the commerce clause of the U.S. 

Constitution. It would be too attenuated from a connection to interstate commerce because you’d be regulating very solely intrastate 

things that are under the sovereign power of the States. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Wrigley. Mr. 

Williams. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I do not believe that the proposed rule is an expansion of jurisdictional reach of the Clean 

Water Act. In fact, as the Congressional Research Service report on 

the proposed rule shows, the proposed rule would bring into its 

scope 3 percent more area than the 2008 guidance. But as compared to the reach of the Clean Water Act prior to the Supreme 

Court cases in 2001 and 2006, the proposed rule would affect 5 percent less wetlands than were originally under jurisdiction of the 

Clean Water Act. 

And I think it’s important to also look at some of the Congressional Record that we have relating to when the Clean Water Act 

was initially passed and when the amendments of 1977 were considered. In particular—and I highlighted and referenced these in 

my written testimony, but if I may I’d like to read a short quote 

from Republican Senator Baker from the 1977 deliberations. ‘‘A 

fundamental element of the water act is broad jurisdiction over 

water for pollution control purposes. It is important to understand 

that toxic substances threaten the aquatic environment when discharged into small streams or into major waterways. Similarly, pollutants are available to degrade water and attendant biota when 

discharged into marshes and swamps, both below and above the 
71 

mean and ordinary high water marks. The once seemingly separable types of aquatic systems are, we now know, interrelated and 

interdependent. We cannot expect to preserve the remaining qualities of our water resources without providing appropriate protection for the entire resource.’’ 

And I think it’s also, when we’re looking at this, important to remember that in the Rapanos decision, Justice Kennedy was very 

careful to describe the significant nexus requirement that bounds 

the EPA’s and the Corps’ jurisdictional reach on Clean Water Act 

issues, and to recognize that under the 2008 guidance, on a case 

by case basis, the Corps and the EPA applied the significant nexus 

test. What’s new about the proposed rule is that there is clarity to 

the significant nexus test. 

We no longer will have to go through the case by case determination for waters that have always been under Clean Water Act jurisdiction and now we only will have to mess with the complication 

of a case by case jurisdictional determination for those waters—the 

other waters category. 

And so this is not an expansion of jurisdiction and, in fact, it’s 

compared to application of the Clean Water Act prior to SWANCC 

and Rapanos; it’s restricted by 5 percent. 

Senator SULLIVAN. OK. I appreciate that. I just think for the 

record, the Rapanos/Kennedy opinion was a concurring opinion, so 

there’s not a five justice majority on that test. And also for the 

record, the Congressional Research Service report that you cite 

states, ‘‘Changes proposed in the proposed rule would increase the 

assertive geographic scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction, in part, 

as a result of the agencies expressly declaring some types of waters 

categorically jurisdictional and also by application of new definitions which give larger regulatory context to some types of waters 

such as tributaries.’’ 

So in my view and, more importantly, in the view of the Congressional Research Service, the rule does expand jurisdiction. And 

with regard to the EPA, I think you give them an inch, they’re 

going to take a mile. And that’s my concern. Mr. Wrigley, do you 

have a—— 

Mr. WRIGLEY. Yes, just a couple of comments with respect to 

clarity. Certainly, the rule provides clarity. If you make everything 

that rain touches or water touches a wetland, then there is clarity 

there. So from that standpoint, the rule does provide clarity. Is it 

an expansion? I don’t think that there can be any dissent really, 

I mean, in all honesty, that it does expand that. I look at my farm, 

my field, if I have to leave those low spots or get a permit for them 

because they’re under Clean Water Act jurisdiction now, where up 

until now they had not been, that’s an expansion of that authority. 

I’m not required to do it right now. 

And as far as the significant nexus requirement, the courts held 

that a significant nexus was required and EPA’s interpretation of 

that was that essentially all waters are connected, therefore there 

is a significant nexus that exists. In my field when that water goes 

downstream until it’s stopped by a road, which is in existence, and 

then the frost goes out and the water melts away, that’s a significant nexus; it actually picks up underground at that point. But 

that would require me to have that permit. 
72 

So I don’t think that there’s any way that you can really state 

that it’s not an expansion because that area is not under Clean 

Water Act jurisdiction right now—not under EPA jurisdiction right 

now. And we have talked a number of times about that the current 

amount of land under jurisdiction at this time is less than before 

SWANCC. The fact of the matter is that those Supreme Court decisions were in—were found to be there because they were already 

overstepping their bounds. That’s why they were restricted. That’s 

why they pulled back. 

So we can’t go back to pre-1977 and say, well, this is what the 

traditional interpretation was, because that was clarified by the 

court and now we are looking at not just the 3 percent increase— 

that’s what EPA is saying, that we’re going to increase that 

amount by 3 percent. In reality, we’re talking about millions and 

millions and millions of acres across the Country. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Well, even 3 percent in Alaska is huge. 

Let me turn to another final couple of questions. I do want to— 

you know, Mr. Carroll, Mr. Williams, Ms. Mauger, you guys importantly, and I think it is important testimony, you raise the—you 

emphasize the importance of our fisheries and I think everybody in 

the room can agree on the importance of Alaska’s fisheries. You 

know, you mentioned they’re actually—the numbers I have seen, 

they’re actually the No. 1 employer in State of Alaska, more than 

oil and gas. So incredibly important for all of us, for our heritage, 

for recreation, for livelihood. 

But I want to ask you, can we make sure that we protect our 

fisheries without the Federal Government being involved in such a 

heavy-handed way? You know, the State actually has a—we’re not 

perfect, certainly, but we have a pretty good record certainly relative to some of the States that you mentioned, Maine, Massachusetts, the sustainable fisheries at the Federal and the State level. 

Is this the kind of Federal intervention that we need to make sure 

our fisheries stay healthy or can we do this with regard to our own 

interests? In my view, we’re better at this than anyone in Washington, DC, and you guys are very involved in this important part 

of our livelihood and life in Alaska. 

Ms. MAUGER. Thank you for the question. With our current State 

government budget, I think the answer has to be no; that Alaska 

cannot protect its waterways sufficiently and that just as the Federal Government pays for the vast majority of our infrastructure 

and things that make living here possible, I think we need the benefit of being part of the larger Country and taking advantage of 

those resources. And I think personally that that is what the EPA 

is bringing to us, is bringing—— 

Senator SULLIVAN. But remember the Federal Government is not 

paying for this. We’re going to pay for this, this regulation. I don’t 

see the EPA doing anything in terms of additional expenditures. 

They’re just going to promulgate a reg that we pay for. So, I don’t 

see the connection to Federal spending in the rule. 

Ms. MAUGER. Presently, the vast majority of efforts to monitor 

and research our water bodies in the State is from Clean Water Act 

money that is passed through to the States. The Alaska Clean 

Water Action program is one of the few pots of money available for 

monitoring of water quality issues. And in many cases, there are 
73 

infractions or lack of permits and discharges that can only be identified through the efforts of monitoring and the Federal Government is paying for that kind of oversight on what is actually getting into our water bodies through the Nonpoint Source Program. 

And so I do think that the Federal Government is an important 

player in ensuring that those permits are being properly instituted 

and that there are plenty of examples where discharges are happening and they’re only being identified by people monitoring. So 

I do think the Federal Government is playing an important piece 

in keeping the waters clean. 

Senator SULLIVAN. OK. Mr. Williams. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think some of the points that Ms. Mauger 

raised, especially regarding the difficulty—the difficult financial 

status of our State budget at the moment, really need to be given 

our consideration here. One of the initiatives that Trout Unlimited 

has throughout many parts of the Country, but that is particularly 

relevant in Alaska, is many of our members will go out and document the presence and absence of anadromous fishes and nominate 

waters to the State’s anadromous waters catalog for—you know, 

that would then potentially benefit from our anadromous fish protection laws. 

Most recently we submitted a handful of nominations as we do 

most years and these are nominations that include scientific documentation of the presence and absence of anadromous fishes, typically coho salmon, high in the watershed for spawning, rearing, or 

migration that have, in the past, been readily accepted as viable 

nominations. This past year, the Alaska Fish and Game denied our 

nominations on the grounds that they did not have the funds to 

process our nomination requests. These are waters that are not 

currently in the Anadromous Waters Catalog, but that nonetheless 

have coho salmon spawning, rearing, or migrating through. These 

are small headwater areas, areas that don’t necessarily even flow 

continuously year-round, but nonetheless have coho juvenile salmon in them. 

Senator SULLIVAN. That are not currently covered by the Clean 

Water Act? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. These are areas that are not currently protected 

by our State’s anadromous waters laws. If we did not have protections like those afforded by the Clean Water Act and we were relying exclusively on State protections, these are areas that would not 

be protected under State law, but that nonetheless contribute significantly to the production of salmon that support, as you, yourself, indicated, the largest employer in our State. 

So if we want to repeal Clean Water Act protection—— 

Senator SULLIVAN. Nobody is talking about doing that, so that’s 

not—— 

Mr. WILLIAMS. If—— 

Senator SULLIVAN. Let’s not go there. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. If we—— 

Senator SULLIVAN. That’s an area that’s a red herring. Nobody 

is talking about that. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. If we are talking about the value or the potential 

for the State to provide the same clean water protective services 

that the EPA, under the Clean Water Act, or the Corps under the 
74 

Clean Water Act do, I think there’s a real problem from a financial 

standpoint with our State being able to fund those programs in a 

way that meaningfully protects our fisheries. 

Senator SULLIVAN. I just worry that the way this is being discussed, it’s going to make farmers like, you know, Mr. Wrigley, be 

the one holding the financial costs, because it isn’t—Mr. 

MacKinnon? 

Mr. MACKINNON. Along the same lines, you know, I remember 

statehood, I remember before statehood. I’m probably one of the 

oldest ones up on this panel. You know, fisheries under Federal 

protection and Federal management were on a downhill trajectory 

and it didn’t improve until the State took management over and 

that was in the late sixties. A number of programs the State put 

in place are the result—resulted in the vibrant fisheries we have 

today, and at the same time development occurred in Alaska, absent the Clean Water Act. And fisheries and development can coexist, they do co-exist, and the development, you know, is one of 

those things that allows the fisheries to be here because without 

that development we wouldn’t have shoreside facilities, roads to get 

to the boat launch facilities and everything else. They have to coexist and they do co-exist. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Listen, I want to end with one final—you’ve 

been very patient. I appreciate it. We’ve run over our time. 

Ms. Taylor, your opening statement I thought was very powerful 

in terms of this idea that—and I’ll let you articulate it because 

you’ll do so way better than I would. But in some people minds, 

whether it’s senators from the East Coast or outside environmental 

groups, that Alaska is some kind of snow globe, you know, some 

kind of dream destination that they can feel great about particularly given that some of these States with some of their policies 

over the years certainly have not done a good job of keeping their 

water as clean as ours or their air as clean as ours, or their environment as pristine as ours. So once they’ve kind of ruined—well, 

I shouldn’t go that far, but they look at us as saying we have to 

preserve Alaska and nothing can happen. The 10–02 area of 

ANWR, several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 

written the Secretary of Interior saying, keep it up, lock it up. That 

makes them feel good. My view is it hurts us. It hurts our future. 

It hurts my kids’ future. It hurts your kids’ future. 

And can you comment about that, because it is something that 

I see, but you stated it so well and I think it’s very important for 

our fellow Alaskans to hear about that. And I’d just like to conclude the hearing on kind of what you started with in regard to 

those issues. We all certainly want the cleanest water, the cleanest 

environment. We live here. We care more about it than the EPA 

administrator does, I guarantee you. But there is this notion to 

keep us down so they can feel good. 

Ms. TAYLOR. Yes, you put it very well. There is a sense that, you 

know, it always comes from people who don’t really understand 

how we are able to both thrive, survive; that there’s a balancing 

act that we have to do as Alaskans because Alaska, it’s not a place 

where we can just massively grow our own food, it’s not a place 

where—we can hunt and we can fish, but so long as somebody lets 

us. You know, there is—I was talking to—actually, Mayor Brower 
75 

put it really well, too. I was talking to a group of people last weekend and I said, you know, if everybody outside wants us to go back 

to living in sod houses and heat it with whale oil and trying to kill 

our own food and feed our families, we couldn’t do it because 

there’s not a single way that any of that could happen anymore because of Federal permitting. We couldn’t mine the sod, we couldn’t 

actually kill the whales, we couldn’t go and, you know, kill enough 

to feed a family to do it. So we’re really kind of stuck in a situation 

where, and this is how I usually refer to it, we’re kind of being 

idealized into powerlessness. 

People have this ideation and they want to preserve Alaska, that 

they fail to recognize the fact that people live here and that we live 

in these communities. And the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act was a really great opportunity where everybody 

got to kind of take a minute and realize this is what—this how 

we’ll divide up Alaskans, but we will protect their lifestyle. And 

you don’t see that anymore. You don’t see that anymore at all. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Well, listen, I want to thank all of you. This 

is a very informative panel. I want to thank those of you who attended the hearing today. Please, if you’d like to submit comments 

to the committee, we will keep the record open for the next 10 days 

to receive any other comments in addition to the comments from 

our two panels. And I really appreciate your interest in this important issue, and we look forward to hearing more as we move forward on this matter. 

Thank you very much. The hearing is hereby adjourned. 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 

Æ